3 ms·
I don’t like it either but blame goes to the top of the org chart. That’s not illegal or, by the standards of the field, flagrantly unethical so it’s a bit extr
by acdha 3mo ago
I don’t like it either but blame goes to the top of the org chart. That’s not illegal or, by the standards of the field, flagrantly unethical so it’s a bit extreme to expect someone to resign over.
- walt_grata 3mo agoBlame goes to everyone involved. From the decision makers to the implementors
- _factor 3mo agoMostly lack of competition and anti-trust regulation. Who would use a worse service when a healthy alternative exists?
- account42 3mo agoNo, even healthy competition can only do so much.
- pibaker 3mo agoAre you willing to show us your work history and let hackers news judge every single feature you have implemented in your career in exchange for money?
- triceratops 3mo agoSo the voters too, then? They could've elected politicians who passed laws against this.
- dml2135 3mo agoI don’t know what standards you are referring to, but yea I would call it flagrantly unethical for sure.
- acdha 3mo agoIs not showing a cancel button quickly better or worse than treating accessibility as a checkbox and producing things which many people struggle to use despite laws requiring you to support them? Shoving unwanted features into a bundle? Encouraging people to use Chrome by introducing dependencies on proprietary features or not testing other browsers? Designing apps with bloated JavaScript frameworks which are borderline unusable on non-flagship phones? Using ad networks which skimp on malware prevention or resell user activity data? Requiring lots of PII and storing it haphazardly? Designing products which depend on servers which are shutoff over the wishes of customers? Working for a company whose products support wars or mass surveillance? I’m not saying it’s great but … the tech industry has a lot of problems and I can sympathize with someone who isn’t quick to resign when most of the alternatives aren’t clearly better. It’s a lot easier to say someone else should take a moral stance when you personally won’t have to pay their bills.
- jakelazaroff 3mo agoDoing bad things is bad and people don't get a free pass just because someone is giving them money for it.
- dml2135 3mo agoWell, some of those examples are instances of not being able to prioritize a good thing. That can be due to an unethical decision, but can also be due to needing to prioritize other things, possibly better things. The unethical part of the example that I was referring to is, you have the good thing built, but you are refusing to give it to some people, for bad reasons.
- Larrikin 3mo agoYou were just following orders, that's a great argument
- acdha 3mo agoKeep thinking about the parallel you’re drawing and you might hit the difference: that phrase gained notoriety in the Nuremberg trials for murder but somehow we do not give the same weight to, say, a pushy salesman or a debt collector or a government employee enforcing strict means testing laws. Is it possible that our moral sense can account for things being less severe than murder and draw a distinction between actual Nazis and people doing what they can to survive in an unforgiving country with few supports?