5 ms·

> I'm in senior leadership, and have made it clear that anyone who has worked on these products should not be hired. Can't say I agree with that specific take

> I'm in senior leadership, and have made it clear that anyone who has worked on these products should not be hired. Can't say I agree with that specific take (and find it a bit naive to be honest), unless you're also not hiring anyone from companies like Amazon, Meta, and all the other tech companies that have also ruined/preyed on society in their own way just as much as any gambling app has.

kakacik 6mo ago
Morals start and stop somewhere, please don't attack people when they actually show some proper morals on this forum despite the employment of many members here.
- hunterpayne 6mo ago
  It depends, if the morals cause more harm than they prevent, then no, the people espousing those "morals" don't deserve respect. They should be treated as naive which is what they are. Also, this is why we have the phrase, "virtual signaling" which specifically means a "moral" which causes more harm than good and seems to exist mostly to make the speaker seem more ethical than they actually are. Ignorance isn't a virtue and it shouldn't be treated as such.
  - Eisenstein 6mo ago
    Can you provide examples of morals that cause more harm than they prevent? Why do you think virtue signaling causes harm? Can you explain the relevance of 'ignorance isn't a virtue'?
  - jmye 6mo ago
    > "virtual signaling" which specifically means a "moral" which causes more harm than good Literally not what that means, at all. What a ridiculous assertion.
UqWBcuFx6NV4r 6mo ago
[flagged]
- rustystump 6mo ago
  Wow. Glad i wont ever work for/with you. Not because i worked at any of those “bad bad” companies but because your take is a horrible sign of what to expect. Like, if it was a pm or leadership person i can kinda understand it. They are the ones pushing direction. But what, some call center support guy is sol because his resume has kelshi on it? Not everyone is in a position to have luxury beliefs.
  - ggggffggggg 6mo ago
    But if you are hiring people that have had that luxury, and yet have chosen immoral paths, what does that say about them and about you?
    - rustystump 6mo ago
      Sure, but the vast majority of even technical positions are not in the luxury belief bucket.
  - rafterydj 6mo ago
    I definitely think there's a middle ground here, that the commenter to which you are replying may also be alluding. If a human is scanning resumes, job titles tend to be more important than the company, although both are obviously relevant. So yes, if one is "Senior VP - Engagement Optimization" at e.g. Draft Kings, that would imply a level of culpability for "gambling experience = do not hire". But if the title is "call center support - kelshi - 6 mo. contract"? Sure. I don't think the policy needs to be as stringent as all that. Not necessarily disagreeing with either perspective, since they don't seem incompatible to me.
- littlecranky67 6mo ago
  If it is your company then this is fine, it is your money afterall, and can do as you see fit. If you are employed or have co-shareholders, you are managing someone elses money. And you are not supposed to act within your morals, but those of the company. It would be kind of hipocritical to act on your own morals using someone elses money - up to the point where it could be illegal misapropriation. And then taking the moral highground and being judgemental about people because they worked in gambling is probably something one should reconsider.
mcmcmc 6mo ago
I think the difference between the two is Amazon and Meta do provide some utility to balance it out, whereas gambling is purely a net negative on society. You can be young and naive enough to believe you're "making the world a better place" in big tech. You can't work on pure gambling products without being a scammer at heart; you know what you signed up for.
- socalgal2 6mo ago
  You can, because the definition of gambling is loose. Magic The Gathering is gambling. You by a pack and hope you get a valuable card, no different than buying a lottery ticket and hope you win. Pokemon Go is also gambling. You pay to hatch eggs and hope you get a rare pokemon. I'm pretty confident the people who made these games don't consider their design to be evil or wrong. In fact, I'm sure they see themselves has having provided millions of people with fun entertainment.
  - brailsafe 6mo ago
    I'd be slightly more specific with those assertions, and point them at the gambling mechanics themselves, although I do agree. The games are not inseparable from those mechanics, and are quite fun on their own. I just got into magic, and am sadly watching my more gambling prone friends fall down that rabit hole. They keep asking me what cards I've bought or whatever and the answer is none, aside from a starter deck. I have literally zero interest in engaging with any game in that way, despite enjoying the booster pack gamble as kid with pokemon. If I were to gamble, I'd much rather throw a couple bucks on who wins a game rather than what cards I'll get.
    - edwcross 6mo ago
      One of the only good things I got from MtG is Card Forge (https://card-forge.github.io/forge/ https://card-forge.github.io/forge/), an open-source unofficial rule engine that also contains a desktop and a mobile app. They allow playing a game similar to the old Shandalar from Microprose, in which you wander around a world dueling enemies (playing MtG against them), getting money and resources, and improving your deck until you can beat the big bosses. It's one of the best ways to play the game: single-player, offline, and unofficial. Therefore you can have almost any card in existence without having to gamble with real-world money. It lets you enjoy the strategic part of the game and its meta, including deck building. The only downside is that the single-player game robs you of part of the charm, that is playing with other people.
Barrin92 6mo ago
this is a false equivalence. Amazon and Meta have caused plenty of damage, companies in our capitalist economies are bad etc. But shipping you books or connecting you to other people isn't inherently evil. There's nothing wrong with the service itself. Gambling is. It's been a vice in virtually every culture for thousands of years. It's akin to peddling drugs. The practice itself is corrosive and destroys people. It's one thing to acknowledge that any for profit company in some way behaves badly, but you can't change the world. You can choose not to sell poison.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- adamandsteve 6mo ago
  Between these I think Amazon is less bad. It's a monopoly & monopsony which causes a lack of innovation and (eventually) higher prices but it's also a much more efficient way to sell things and it doesn't destroy the fabric of society or anything. Meta though is just as bad if not worse than any gambling site out there. Its products are optimized to destroy your attention span, feed you polarizing content, destroy your mental health and waste hours of your time every day all while ironically making you less connected to other people because users won't get off their phones and have a conversation.
  - WalterBright 6mo ago
    Amazon is not a monopoly. See Walmart, Ebay, etc. Lots of companies sell products online. > (eventally) higher prices I have not noticed Amazon charging higher prices than others. The difficulty in charging higher prices is competitors emerge.
    - argomo 6mo ago
      Amazon extracts a lot of the value of a purchase from the seller's take. Sellers risk sanctions if they sell a product cheaper thru their brand website.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> unless you're also not hiring anyone from companies like Amazon, Meta, and all the other tech companies that have also ruined/preyed on society in their own way just as much as any gambling app has It depends on the role. If you were doing something deeply technical, or facing customers who loved your work, I think you get a pass. If you were building features nobody outside your company is thankful for, you need to do a convincing repentance act. If you worked on Instagram for Kids or whale optimization, fuck off.
- pcthrowaway 6mo ago
  Building part of a killing machine isn't really something you can defend, even if you weren't working on the part of the machine that does the killing.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > Building part of a killing machine isn't really something you can defend Of course it is. I don't personally have an issue with folks who worked on weapons of war. Particularly if they're honest with themselves about the work they did. Doubly particularly if they felt a sense of mission in it. And in an integrated culture and economy, the difference between a person who happens to work at a company with an evil project in a random division and a person who grows complacent about politics with their non-problematic job is thin to the point of vanishing.
    - keybored 6mo ago
      > > If you worked on Instagram for Kids or whale optimization, fuck off. > > I don't personally have an issue with folks who worked on weapons of war. Makes sense.
  - zeroonetwothree 6mo ago
    We all live in glass houses
  - hunterpayne 6mo ago
beachy 6mo ago
Or the young person who needs a job and doesn't yet have OP's fully formed understanding of exactly where the line is - apparently gambling bad/ ad tech OK.
- jmye 6mo ago
  If they got a job at one of those companies, they could've gotten a job elsewhere. It's a specific choice, and "but I'm only 25, how could I possibly be expected to know right from wrong" isn't really an excuse.
Jare 6mo ago
I'd be ok with the rule only if the candidate liked the field. I respect anyone who is willing to have a bad time in order to put food on the table, and be upfront about it. There's plenty of psychopathic candidates where I won't get that datapoint simply because they were luckier with the job market.
mikestorrent 6mo ago
Naive? I think it shows a higher than average level of awareness. Gambling is rent-seeking that targets vulnerable individuals. It's really only a small step away from dealing in addicting drugs; and is in some ways worse, because it addicts not just individuals, but also cities and countries who get used to the tax output.
triceratops 6mo ago
I don't like Amazon personally. But how is it like gambling or social media? I guess shopping can be an addiction but wouldn't that condemn the entire retail sector?

kakacik 6mo ago

Morals start and stop somewhere, please don't attack people when they actually show some proper morals on this forum despite the employment of many members here.

hunterpayne 6mo ago
It depends, if the morals cause more harm than they prevent, then no, the people espousing those "morals" don't deserve respect. They should be treated as naive which is what they are. Also, this is why we have the phrase, "virtual signaling" which specifically means a "moral" which causes more harm than good and seems to exist mostly to make the speaker seem more ethical than they actually are. Ignorance isn't a virtue and it shouldn't be treated as such.
- Eisenstein 6mo ago
  Can you provide examples of morals that cause more harm than they prevent? Why do you think virtue signaling causes harm? Can you explain the relevance of 'ignorance isn't a virtue'?
- jmye 6mo ago
  > "virtual signaling" which specifically means a "moral" which causes more harm than good Literally not what that means, at all. What a ridiculous assertion.

UqWBcuFx6NV4r 6mo ago

[flagged]

rustystump 6mo ago
Wow. Glad i wont ever work for/with you. Not because i worked at any of those “bad bad” companies but because your take is a horrible sign of what to expect. Like, if it was a pm or leadership person i can kinda understand it. They are the ones pushing direction. But what, some call center support guy is sol because his resume has kelshi on it? Not everyone is in a position to have luxury beliefs.
- ggggffggggg 6mo ago
  But if you are hiring people that have had that luxury, and yet have chosen immoral paths, what does that say about them and about you?
  - rustystump 6mo ago
    Sure, but the vast majority of even technical positions are not in the luxury belief bucket.
- rafterydj 6mo ago
  I definitely think there's a middle ground here, that the commenter to which you are replying may also be alluding. If a human is scanning resumes, job titles tend to be more important than the company, although both are obviously relevant. So yes, if one is "Senior VP - Engagement Optimization" at e.g. Draft Kings, that would imply a level of culpability for "gambling experience = do not hire". But if the title is "call center support - kelshi - 6 mo. contract"? Sure. I don't think the policy needs to be as stringent as all that. Not necessarily disagreeing with either perspective, since they don't seem incompatible to me.
littlecranky67 6mo ago
If it is your company then this is fine, it is your money afterall, and can do as you see fit. If you are employed or have co-shareholders, you are managing someone elses money. And you are not supposed to act within your morals, but those of the company. It would be kind of hipocritical to act on your own morals using someone elses money - up to the point where it could be illegal misapropriation. And then taking the moral highground and being judgemental about people because they worked in gambling is probably something one should reconsider.

mcmcmc 6mo ago

I think the difference between the two is Amazon and Meta do provide some utility to balance it out, whereas gambling is purely a net negative on society. You can be young and naive enough to believe you're "making the world a better place" in big tech. You can't work on pure gambling products without being a scammer at heart; you know what you signed up for.

socalgal2 6mo ago
You can, because the definition of gambling is loose. Magic The Gathering is gambling. You by a pack and hope you get a valuable card, no different than buying a lottery ticket and hope you win. Pokemon Go is also gambling. You pay to hatch eggs and hope you get a rare pokemon. I'm pretty confident the people who made these games don't consider their design to be evil or wrong. In fact, I'm sure they see themselves has having provided millions of people with fun entertainment.
- brailsafe 6mo ago
  I'd be slightly more specific with those assertions, and point them at the gambling mechanics themselves, although I do agree. The games are not inseparable from those mechanics, and are quite fun on their own. I just got into magic, and am sadly watching my more gambling prone friends fall down that rabit hole. They keep asking me what cards I've bought or whatever and the answer is none, aside from a starter deck. I have literally zero interest in engaging with any game in that way, despite enjoying the booster pack gamble as kid with pokemon. If I were to gamble, I'd much rather throw a couple bucks on who wins a game rather than what cards I'll get.
  - edwcross 6mo ago
    One of the only good things I got from MtG is Card Forge (https://card-forge.github.io/forge/ https://card-forge.github.io/forge/), an open-source unofficial rule engine that also contains a desktop and a mobile app. They allow playing a game similar to the old Shandalar from Microprose, in which you wander around a world dueling enemies (playing MtG against them), getting money and resources, and improving your deck until you can beat the big bosses. It's one of the best ways to play the game: single-player, offline, and unofficial. Therefore you can have almost any card in existence without having to gamble with real-world money. It lets you enjoy the strategic part of the game and its meta, including deck building. The only downside is that the single-player game robs you of part of the charm, that is playing with other people.

Barrin92 6mo ago

this is a false equivalence. Amazon and Meta have caused plenty of damage, companies in our capitalist economies are bad etc. But shipping you books or connecting you to other people isn't inherently evil. There's nothing wrong with the service itself. Gambling is. It's been a vice in virtually every culture for thousands of years. It's akin to peddling drugs. The practice itself is corrosive and destroys people. It's one thing to acknowledge that any for profit company in some way behaves badly, but you can't change the world. You can choose not to sell poison.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
adamandsteve 6mo ago
Between these I think Amazon is less bad. It's a monopoly & monopsony which causes a lack of innovation and (eventually) higher prices but it's also a much more efficient way to sell things and it doesn't destroy the fabric of society or anything. Meta though is just as bad if not worse than any gambling site out there. Its products are optimized to destroy your attention span, feed you polarizing content, destroy your mental health and waste hours of your time every day all while ironically making you less connected to other people because users won't get off their phones and have a conversation.
- WalterBright 6mo ago
  Amazon is not a monopoly. See Walmart, Ebay, etc. Lots of companies sell products online. > (eventally) higher prices I have not noticed Amazon charging higher prices than others. The difficulty in charging higher prices is competitors emerge.
  - argomo 6mo ago
    Amazon extracts a lot of the value of a purchase from the seller's take. Sellers risk sanctions if they sell a product cheaper thru their brand website.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago

> unless you're also not hiring anyone from companies like Amazon, Meta, and all the other tech companies that have also ruined/preyed on society in their own way just as much as any gambling app has It depends on the role. If you were doing something deeply technical, or facing customers who loved your work, I think you get a pass. If you were building features nobody outside your company is thankful for, you need to do a convincing repentance act. If you worked on Instagram for Kids or whale optimization, fuck off.

pcthrowaway 6mo ago
Building part of a killing machine isn't really something you can defend, even if you weren't working on the part of the machine that does the killing.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > Building part of a killing machine isn't really something you can defend Of course it is. I don't personally have an issue with folks who worked on weapons of war. Particularly if they're honest with themselves about the work they did. Doubly particularly if they felt a sense of mission in it. And in an integrated culture and economy, the difference between a person who happens to work at a company with an evil project in a random division and a person who grows complacent about politics with their non-problematic job is thin to the point of vanishing.
  - keybored 6mo ago
    > > If you worked on Instagram for Kids or whale optimization, fuck off. > > I don't personally have an issue with folks who worked on weapons of war. Makes sense.
- zeroonetwothree 6mo ago
  We all live in glass houses
- hunterpayne 6mo ago

beachy 6mo ago

Or the young person who needs a job and doesn't yet have OP's fully formed understanding of exactly where the line is - apparently gambling bad/ ad tech OK.

jmye 6mo ago
If they got a job at one of those companies, they could've gotten a job elsewhere. It's a specific choice, and "but I'm only 25, how could I possibly be expected to know right from wrong" isn't really an excuse.

Jare 6mo ago

I'd be ok with the rule only if the candidate liked the field. I respect anyone who is willing to have a bad time in order to put food on the table, and be upfront about it. There's plenty of psychopathic candidates where I won't get that datapoint simply because they were luckier with the job market.

mikestorrent 6mo ago

Naive? I think it shows a higher than average level of awareness. Gambling is rent-seeking that targets vulnerable individuals. It's really only a small step away from dealing in addicting drugs; and is in some ways worse, because it addicts not just individuals, but also cities and countries who get used to the tax output.

triceratops 6mo ago

I don't like Amazon personally. But how is it like gambling or social media? I guess shopping can be an addiction but wouldn't that condemn the entire retail sector?