4 ms·

Reminder if you work for any of these companies (not unlikely on this site) you are actively enabling this. If your first reaction is doubt, deflection, rationa

by jedahan 5mo ago

Reminder if you work for any of these companies (not unlikely on this site) you are actively enabling this. If your first reaction is doubt, deflection, rationalization or discomfort, there are ways out.

6thbit 5mo ago
If you make open source used by any of this companies for this network, would you also characterize it as actively enabling this? If your retirement fund owns stocks of the s&p 500, does that make you an enabler? Are there really ways out?
- croes 5mo ago
  No Yes Maybe
- pamcake 5mo ago
  Are those things you are personally struggling with (if you are considering quitting open source contribitions wholesale: don't let this make you) or is this a showcase of rationalization?
- Barbing 5mo ago
  > Are there really ways out? Not with that attitude
- jedahan 5mo ago
  Its very personal and situation dependent, but I truly believe that if you work at Amazon or Facebook and do not want to support this, you can.
- saghm 5mo ago
  > If you make open source used by any of this companies for this network, would you also characterize it as actively enabling this? That's a pretty strange conflation. It's pretty commonly discussed exactly how rare it is for people to make open source to get compensated by companies that use their projects. I find it hard to imagine that you genuinely think that there isn't an obvious distinction that most observers would draw between that and direct employment.
- keybored 5mo ago
  Yes.
Manuel_D 5mo ago
Or perhaps when Amazon facilities security encounters someone doing destructive or harmful things, then sharing that information with other companies in the city is a perfectly reasonable measure? This is functionally no different than sharing your encounters with disruptive people on NextDoor.
- KennyBlanken 5mo ago
  > Or perhaps when Amazon facilities security encounters someone doing destructive or harmful things, then sharing that information with other companies in the city is a perfectly reasonable measure? If only there were a way to address people doing destructive or harmful things. We could even make it reachable using a telephone, with a very convenient to dial, short, easily remembered number sequence. I don't know about you, but in my area, NextDoor is mostly "I saw non-white errrrr I mean, uh, 'someone who doesn't look like they belong here' person in my neighborhood" and general witch-hunting any time it's mentioned someone gets arrested for Also, we have concepts like "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" for a reason. Corporatizing law enforcement is not a good thing. If Amazon wants to work with the PD they can show up to a community relations meeting like everyone else?
  - Manuel_D 5mo ago
    Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the government. Again, say you run a store in the city. You encounter someone who smashes some merchandise. The police don't make an arrest because the person insists it was accidental, but you're confident it was intentional. Is it wrong to share this experience with other shopkeepers? The irony is that curbing this "private intelligence network" would require infringing on the free speech of private people.
    - saghm 5mo ago
      > say you run a store in the city. You encounter someone who smashes some merchandise. The police don't make an arrest because the person insists it was accidental, but you're confident it was intentional. Is it wrong to share this experience with other shopkeepers? When the "shopkeepers" are billion dollar corporations, and several levels of law enforcement (including national ones like immigration officials) are also on the network, I think it makes sense for the level of scrutiny to be a bit higher than your hypothetical
stronglikedan 5mo ago
If you work for any company, you're actively enabling injustices against someone, so just make a living and don't worry so much.
- jedahan 5mo ago
  This is the kind of rationalization I am referring to.
- ozozozd 5mo ago
  So work for mercenaries, and tell people “it’s just a job?” Maybe there are shades of gray between black and white.
- red-iron-pine 5mo ago
  this is the high quality content that I come to HN for
- KennyBlanken 5mo ago
  [flagged]
- ishouldstayaway 5mo ago
  > ...he said, shovelling orphans into the crushing machine
- saghm 5mo ago
  "There are lots of bad things" does not imply "all bad things are equally bad and therefore it's not worthwhile to try to prevent any of them"
- honzaik 5mo ago
  this is like arguing that laws are useless because theyre not bulletproof. please stop with this pseudological thinking
- keybored 5mo ago
  “Software is eating the world”, but also “not working on antisocial tech is too difficult aaah”. Is it though? Finding some ethically neutral Crud gig?
BeetleB 5mo ago
Do you feel the same way about the warehouse workers?

by jedahan 5mo ago

6thbit 5mo ago

If you make open source used by any of this companies for this network, would you also characterize it as actively enabling this? If your retirement fund owns stocks of the s&p 500, does that make you an enabler? Are there really ways out?

croes 5mo ago
No Yes Maybe
pamcake 5mo ago
Are those things you are personally struggling with (if you are considering quitting open source contribitions wholesale: don't let this make you) or is this a showcase of rationalization?
Barbing 5mo ago
> Are there really ways out? Not with that attitude
jedahan 5mo ago
Its very personal and situation dependent, but I truly believe that if you work at Amazon or Facebook and do not want to support this, you can.
saghm 5mo ago
> If you make open source used by any of this companies for this network, would you also characterize it as actively enabling this? That's a pretty strange conflation. It's pretty commonly discussed exactly how rare it is for people to make open source to get compensated by companies that use their projects. I find it hard to imagine that you genuinely think that there isn't an obvious distinction that most observers would draw between that and direct employment.
keybored 5mo ago
Yes.

Manuel_D 5mo ago

Or perhaps when Amazon facilities security encounters someone doing destructive or harmful things, then sharing that information with other companies in the city is a perfectly reasonable measure? This is functionally no different than sharing your encounters with disruptive people on NextDoor.

KennyBlanken 5mo ago
> Or perhaps when Amazon facilities security encounters someone doing destructive or harmful things, then sharing that information with other companies in the city is a perfectly reasonable measure? If only there were a way to address people doing destructive or harmful things. We could even make it reachable using a telephone, with a very convenient to dial, short, easily remembered number sequence. I don't know about you, but in my area, NextDoor is mostly "I saw non-white errrrr I mean, uh, 'someone who doesn't look like they belong here' person in my neighborhood" and general witch-hunting any time it's mentioned someone gets arrested for Also, we have concepts like "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" for a reason. Corporatizing law enforcement is not a good thing. If Amazon wants to work with the PD they can show up to a community relations meeting like everyone else?
- Manuel_D 5mo ago
  Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the government. Again, say you run a store in the city. You encounter someone who smashes some merchandise. The police don't make an arrest because the person insists it was accidental, but you're confident it was intentional. Is it wrong to share this experience with other shopkeepers? The irony is that curbing this "private intelligence network" would require infringing on the free speech of private people.
  - saghm 5mo ago
    > say you run a store in the city. You encounter someone who smashes some merchandise. The police don't make an arrest because the person insists it was accidental, but you're confident it was intentional. Is it wrong to share this experience with other shopkeepers? When the "shopkeepers" are billion dollar corporations, and several levels of law enforcement (including national ones like immigration officials) are also on the network, I think it makes sense for the level of scrutiny to be a bit higher than your hypothetical

stronglikedan 5mo ago

If you work for any company, you're actively enabling injustices against someone, so just make a living and don't worry so much.

jedahan 5mo ago
This is the kind of rationalization I am referring to.
ozozozd 5mo ago
So work for mercenaries, and tell people “it’s just a job?” Maybe there are shades of gray between black and white.
red-iron-pine 5mo ago
this is the high quality content that I come to HN for
KennyBlanken 5mo ago
[flagged]
ishouldstayaway 5mo ago
> ...he said, shovelling orphans into the crushing machine
saghm 5mo ago
"There are lots of bad things" does not imply "all bad things are equally bad and therefore it's not worthwhile to try to prevent any of them"
honzaik 5mo ago
this is like arguing that laws are useless because theyre not bulletproof. please stop with this pseudological thinking
keybored 5mo ago
“Software is eating the world”, but also “not working on antisocial tech is too difficult aaah”. Is it though? Finding some ethically neutral Crud gig?

BeetleB 5mo ago

Do you feel the same way about the warehouse workers?