The tech sector might be evil(tbray.org)
tbray.org
The tech sector might be evil
https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2017/09/20/Tech-is-Evil
232 comments
If a company is not making money but there are lots of people trying to keep it around it probably means that the company is making money for these people but it's not reflected to the books directly or the payment is due for later time.
It's bit of like building roads that on the books may look like unprofitable venture but the utility they provide makes possible for other businesses to flourish so the roads are kept build and maintained.
Do we really want to see Twitter gone? It's service is invaluable but it feels like they should be state-run or non-profit run or run by a company like Apple that makes it's money from directly selling something to it's users. Not only because Twitter fails to directly make money but also because it harness immense power to shape the human population(but they are not as good as Facebook in this).
It's bit of like building roads that on the books may look like unprofitable venture but the utility they provide makes possible for other businesses to flourish so the roads are kept build and maintained.
Do we really want to see Twitter gone? It's service is invaluable but it feels like they should be state-run or non-profit run or run by a company like Apple that makes it's money from directly selling something to it's users. Not only because Twitter fails to directly make money but also because it harness immense power to shape the human population(but they are not as good as Facebook in this).
I’ve seen quite a lot of suggestions on here that X shouldn’t be allowed to fail by the state, but I don’t really get it. Taking Twitter, it’s not like they are a railway or fuel company that if it shut down would cause massive disruption for many people and industries. And let’s not even begin to get into complications about the state (US government) owning them. How would that affect the privacy of users in other countries?
Twitter is the medium about what's happening RIGHT NOW. In before you would open the TV or the radio to get information about what's happening right now but these days many people would look at Titter to get information about "RIGHT NOW". It could be mundane things about the lives of other people or it could be an event that's affecting large number of people. If something is happening, there would be reports of observations and there would be statements from people in position of making statements.
I don't really think that a state should run a service about what's happening right now but I think that Twitter is invaluable service to the public that needs to be dealt with carefully.
Twitter's power is well beyond the power of displaying ads to users and the only failing thing is the business of displaying ads to users in exchange for money. Twitter's core function is strong, it's not a failing product.
I don't really think that a state should run a service about what's happening right now but I think that Twitter is invaluable service to the public that needs to be dealt with carefully.
Twitter's power is well beyond the power of displaying ads to users and the only failing thing is the business of displaying ads to users in exchange for money. Twitter's core function is strong, it's not a failing product.
Arguably it's a medium for unimportant things happening right now. anecdotal but I see maybe 1% useful tweets and 99% garbage.
You've never used it in a crisis situation then. I've used it to be better informed about several hurricanes near me, political developments, a possible nuclear facility problem affecting family, the Tohuku earthquake, the Macondo well blowout, and numerous other things.
Twitter has been a prime source of first-hand real-time information in many many crises. Just because you haven't used it that way doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps you should curate your feeds a bit better.
Twitter has been a prime source of first-hand real-time information in many many crises. Just because you haven't used it that way doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps you should curate your feeds a bit better.
This is like saying "the library sucks, most of their books are totally irrelevant to me"-- on Twitter, you curate your own feed.
I would second this argument. I quit Twitter about two years ago after realizing that I mostly don't care about the things that are "happening right now" according to Twitter.
Before tv or radio, there were telegraphs, and before that, there were newspapers. News traveled at the speed of horses and the stamina of riders.
I would argue that the immediacy of information comes at the cost of deliberation and the moderation that encourages. I'm not sure the result is a net gain.
I would argue that the immediacy of information comes at the cost of deliberation and the moderation that encourages. I'm not sure the result is a net gain.
I'll say this is the only reason I've really stayed with Twitter. And it's not about the "right now" everywhere else but in my own neighborhood. If I hear a bunch of fire engines or helicopters lingering around, it's usually faster to go to Twitter and search my neighborhood to see what's going on than wait for it to be picked up by local news, if it is at all. You still have to use your brain to try and sort the signal from the noise.
Twitter is useless. Nothing would occur to the US or world if Twitter would shut-down today.
If it is not profitable and runs on loss, then it is making profitable businesses in the same market impossible. We dont want it gone, but we are completely ok with it being gone due to bad business.
I am also ok with some help towards suddenly unemployed employees, owners who lost everything etc. However, business itself existing prevents a company with actual business model to appear.
I dont thing twitter is the kind of service that government should keep alive. It is not like roads.
I am also ok with some help towards suddenly unemployed employees, owners who lost everything etc. However, business itself existing prevents a company with actual business model to appear.
I dont thing twitter is the kind of service that government should keep alive. It is not like roads.
> Do we really want to see Twitter gone?
Yes. As soon as possible, please.
Yes. As soon as possible, please.
why?
It exemplifies and exacerbates all the worst aspects of the internet: clickbaiting, irrelevant oversharing, uninformed commentary, reactionary groupthink, mob harassment, inaccurate and deliberately misleading news, etc.
What positive value does it provide in your opinion?
Do I really want to see Twitter gone? Yes. I despise the trend of writing news articles where tweets are treated as sources, and most of the article is a series of tweets. One of the headlines I avoid ends with the phrase "and the Internet/Twitter goes <strong emotion>".
Twitter has only one logical paying customer that I can see: the media. The media immediately grabbed on to Twitter, pushing their handles on broadcasts. Back in 2007 I remember saying that CNN should have a rack with their name on it at Twitter's data center. Twitter has been trying to find a way to make advertising work, but if anyone wants to save Twitter (if it actually needs saving), it would be the media, maybe in the form of something like the AP, a service that everyone uses and pays into.
Twitter has only one logical paying customer that I can see: the media. The media immediately grabbed on to Twitter, pushing their handles on broadcasts. Back in 2007 I remember saying that CNN should have a rack with their name on it at Twitter's data center. Twitter has been trying to find a way to make advertising work, but if anyone wants to save Twitter (if it actually needs saving), it would be the media, maybe in the form of something like the AP, a service that everyone uses and pays into.
Why do you blame Twitter for the low quality articles that are about Twitter? Maybe you should direct your anger to those who write the news, not Twitter itself.
[deleted]
The other angle which I haven't seen much written about yet (hint hint aspiring journalists) is I personally know a good number of the mid and high level employees at these companies, and they are becoming increasingly disillusioned by the day. They just don't want to be a part of this bullshit system anymore. Especially at Google and Facebook, they seem to be more authoritarian than some toppled dictatorships of the past century.
Fortunately it's a great time for radical career shifts, especially if you always wanted to be an artist.
Fortunately it's a great time for radical career shifts, especially if you always wanted to be an artist.
> Fortunately it's a great time for radical career shifts, especially if you always wanted to be an artist.
Can you elaborate? Genuinely curious.
Can you elaborate? Genuinely curious.
Maybe they meant those mid/high-level employees have enough cash/stock that they can peace out of the work force or work less and pursue something artistic.
As far as that Twitter comment goes: I've always found Bray to be a bit too pleased with himself and not as clever as he would like to think he is. In that context, it's not a humorous bit of side eye but a tedious manifestation of his superiority complex.
He's also 100% correct, Twitter should be de-listed and treated as a utility. It's too much of a public good to get gobbled up by Google or whoever.
What makes Twitter "too much of a public good" in your opinion?
It's very handy as a short message system for public announcements/information.
trying to turn it into anything else has kinda failed
trying to turn it into anything else has kinda failed
What sucks is I can't just tell my friends "you're working for an evil company -- just look at {insert 5 evil things they did in the past couple years}". It sucks even more that these are some of the kindest and most caring people I know, with better moral character than myself -- I almost feel they somehow got brainwashed into their jobs. But who would enjoy hearing that? At best they would ignore it; at worst you'd just lose friends. How can you possibly tell them they're making the world worse when you know they'd never do this intentionally?
If you're a friend, you won't try to control them. Debate in search for truth; admit you might be the one who's wrong. Especially to yourself. But never control.
That's a philosophy that bit me hard when I didn't follow it, so just trying to pass it along.
I think techies are far too used to wielding power. Assume for a moment that the world is evil. What now? Historically, the answer was "Accept it." The idea that we could even do anything to meaningfully change the situation is very recent.
Concretely, starting a startup is one of the few ways you can influence the world. Failing that, there's nothing you can do, so you shouldn't worry about it. Once the cake is in the oven, it'll turn out however it'll turn out.
That's a philosophy that bit me hard when I didn't follow it, so just trying to pass it along.
I think techies are far too used to wielding power. Assume for a moment that the world is evil. What now? Historically, the answer was "Accept it." The idea that we could even do anything to meaningfully change the situation is very recent.
Concretely, starting a startup is one of the few ways you can influence the world. Failing that, there's nothing you can do, so you shouldn't worry about it. Once the cake is in the oven, it'll turn out however it'll turn out.
> Concretely, starting a startup is one of the few ways you can influence the world
...until you get funding. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
...until you get funding. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
What's the point of having an opinion if it's not a morally normative one? /s
Yeah, nothing is exactly what I've been doing so far. I'm just wondering if that's really the best I can do.
Well, that sort of begs the question: Why did you feel you could do anything in the first place?
It sounds like a dopey question, but it's at the root of a lot of these feelings. I used to feel similarly to you: a general sense of malaise, a discomfort with the world, a plan for doing something concrete to change it.
But everyone has limited ambition. If you don't focus it like a laser, you won't get anything done. Then suddenly your time is gone.
I suppose my point is, relax and enjoy yourself. Choose whatever goal you really care about, and focus on that one thing. What Facebook does was never up to us in the first place. Besides, they're far less evil than Microsoft was at its peak. America isn't so bad right now.
It sounds like a dopey question, but it's at the root of a lot of these feelings. I used to feel similarly to you: a general sense of malaise, a discomfort with the world, a plan for doing something concrete to change it.
But everyone has limited ambition. If you don't focus it like a laser, you won't get anything done. Then suddenly your time is gone.
I suppose my point is, relax and enjoy yourself. Choose whatever goal you really care about, and focus on that one thing. What Facebook does was never up to us in the first place. Besides, they're far less evil than Microsoft was at its peak. America isn't so bad right now.
I think it's important to focus on a goal you really care about, but at the same time: be open to other people who've chosen other goals, trust them that they're doing the right thing, and if you can help them with little effort, help them.
If you're focusing on fixing one thing, but you can't get anyone to follow you, you're not going to accomplish anything. Doing the small and low-effort things that, together with other people doing the same, also improve the world - that's really underrated, in my opinion.
If you're focusing on fixing one thing, but you can't get anyone to follow you, you're not going to accomplish anything. Doing the small and low-effort things that, together with other people doing the same, also improve the world - that's really underrated, in my opinion.
Without getting into whether Facebook is more or less evil than peak MS, I think the problem even if an internet company is only a little evil, that evil has much more reach. Peak MS really just affected other tech companies and user choice.
> Well, that sort of begs the question: Why did you feel you could do anything in the first place?
I don't know if I can... that's why I'm asking if I can. If feeling hopeless is the best I can do then so be it, but I'm thinking maybe people have had better success.
I don't know if I can... that's why I'm asking if I can. If feeling hopeless is the best I can do then so be it, but I'm thinking maybe people have had better success.
It's funny. Many years ago, I left academia for NGOs, thinking that I could make a difference. That kept me busy for a decade or so. But looking back, nothing that I accomplished actually made any difference.
Now I'm a privacy fanatic. And my goals are far less grand. I get that most people have little privacy anymore. And I get that there's little hope for them. So I focus on raising awareness, writing how-to guides, etc.
That's not exactly "feeling hopeless". It's more like being realistic.
Now I'm a privacy fanatic. And my goals are far less grand. I get that most people have little privacy anymore. And I get that there's little hope for them. So I focus on raising awareness, writing how-to guides, etc.
That's not exactly "feeling hopeless". It's more like being realistic.
[deleted]
> If you're a friend, you won't try to control them.
Damn straight. But also not relevant to what throwawayN's post. He/she/it is worried about offending people and not worried about a lack of control.
I say buggrit, don't worry, just tell it like you imagine it its. That is in no way an attempt to control.
I'm a Googler, and glad to be one. But if you want to tell me that Google is evil, well that's great. We could dive deep and find out about what your objections are, and have a great time talking about what is right and wrong about your thoughts and right and wrong about my company.
But if I were the sort get all outraged by our mere opinion, then it would be me trying to control you. In which case, why would my feelings be worth damn?
Damn straight. But also not relevant to what throwawayN's post. He/she/it is worried about offending people and not worried about a lack of control.
I say buggrit, don't worry, just tell it like you imagine it its. That is in no way an attempt to control.
I'm a Googler, and glad to be one. But if you want to tell me that Google is evil, well that's great. We could dive deep and find out about what your objections are, and have a great time talking about what is right and wrong about your thoughts and right and wrong about my company.
But if I were the sort get all outraged by our mere opinion, then it would be me trying to control you. In which case, why would my feelings be worth damn?
My response to you would be the following:
1. Working for a company doesn't mean you agree with everything they do. 2. Just because some of the work you do is used by someone else for something you don't agree with doesn't mean that you're evil by default. 3. Try to find a tool that can't be used for "evil". Seriously, I doubt you can find a single thing, whether a device or an application that can't both do good and bad. Should your friends refuse to create anything because it might be put to a use they don't agree with? 4. How do you know they haven't stopped things that you would have considered even worse? Pretty much any job is going to have stuff that you can't talk about, whether for IP, legal, or other reasons.
And at the end of the day, your friends have their own moral codes, just like you do. If they feel that the work they do fits their code, then that's their decision.
1. Working for a company doesn't mean you agree with everything they do. 2. Just because some of the work you do is used by someone else for something you don't agree with doesn't mean that you're evil by default. 3. Try to find a tool that can't be used for "evil". Seriously, I doubt you can find a single thing, whether a device or an application that can't both do good and bad. Should your friends refuse to create anything because it might be put to a use they don't agree with? 4. How do you know they haven't stopped things that you would have considered even worse? Pretty much any job is going to have stuff that you can't talk about, whether for IP, legal, or other reasons.
And at the end of the day, your friends have their own moral codes, just like you do. If they feel that the work they do fits their code, then that's their decision.
My replies would be the following:
1. Right, I realize this. That's one part of why they're still my friends!
2. I never said my friends are evil because of this. I in fact said quite the opposite.
3. The question is not whether something can be used for "evil", but whether it is. If it is, ideally people shouldn't be contributing to it.
4. I have no idea. I'm also not sure how this comes into play.
1. Right, I realize this. That's one part of why they're still my friends!
2. I never said my friends are evil because of this. I in fact said quite the opposite.
3. The question is not whether something can be used for "evil", but whether it is. If it is, ideally people shouldn't be contributing to it.
4. I have no idea. I'm also not sure how this comes into play.
> 3. The question is not whether something can be used for "evil", but whether it is. If it is, ideally people shouldn't be contributing to it.
This is difficult, though. If a thing is used for evil, but also for good, where do you draw the line and say the bad is outweighing the good and the thing has to go?
This is difficult, though. If a thing is used for evil, but also for good, where do you draw the line and say the bad is outweighing the good and the thing has to go?
> This is difficult, though. If a thing is used for evil, but also for good, where do you draw the line and say the bad is outweighing the good and the thing has to go?
That's secondary to the question I'm asking. The question I'm asking is how to even bring up the topic in the first place. If I can get that far I think I've already done pretty well.
That's secondary to the question I'm asking. The question I'm asking is how to even bring up the topic in the first place. If I can get that far I think I've already done pretty well.
My advice would be to start by ditching the word 'evil'. It's ambiguous, and has religious connotations that probably only serve to confuse rather than clarify. Try describing your issues with these companies in more precise terms.
> And at the end of the day, your friends have their own moral codes, just like you do. If they feel that the work they do fits their code, then that's their decision.
That's either vacuous or bullshit.
If you mean that they do in fact decide what they do ... well, yeah? But that does not say anything about whether they should be doing it, nor whether I should agree with it, nor even whether I should try and do something to prevent it.
On the other hand, if you mean that it's acceptable because it is compatible with their own moral codes ... now, that's some dangerous bullshit. If your moral code says that you should kill witches, that does not justify anything at all.
That's either vacuous or bullshit.
If you mean that they do in fact decide what they do ... well, yeah? But that does not say anything about whether they should be doing it, nor whether I should agree with it, nor even whether I should try and do something to prevent it.
On the other hand, if you mean that it's acceptable because it is compatible with their own moral codes ... now, that's some dangerous bullshit. If your moral code says that you should kill witches, that does not justify anything at all.
>If your moral code says that you should kill witches, that does not justify anything at all.
Although I agree, I think it's worth asking "why not?" to introspect our own position. I'll take a stab at it from my perspective.
We might say it doesn't justify anything because we have some moral code that we think everyone should abide by, and part of that might be "Don't go around killing people". Some people turn some parts of the collective moral code into laws so they can be tangibly enforced.
But at a level above law, what is the authority that determines that killing people is absolutely wrong and not just personally repugnant to the majority of the world's population? In other places and times laws might say, for instance, that to combat overpopulation we need to euthanize those under a certain threshold of contribution.
To fight this, we either need to come to terms with the idea that morals and laws are just a matter of personal taste, in which case there's nothing really justifying our own position either and we're just fighting for our personal preference, or we need some higher authority beyond ourselves/consensus/law that justifies our "don't kill people" position and condemns their "euthanize the parasites" position.
To me, morality seems to fall prey to Tarski's undefinability theorem. There can be no definition of moral truth within the system of morality. We need some external system to define moral truth.
Although I agree, I think it's worth asking "why not?" to introspect our own position. I'll take a stab at it from my perspective.
We might say it doesn't justify anything because we have some moral code that we think everyone should abide by, and part of that might be "Don't go around killing people". Some people turn some parts of the collective moral code into laws so they can be tangibly enforced.
But at a level above law, what is the authority that determines that killing people is absolutely wrong and not just personally repugnant to the majority of the world's population? In other places and times laws might say, for instance, that to combat overpopulation we need to euthanize those under a certain threshold of contribution.
To fight this, we either need to come to terms with the idea that morals and laws are just a matter of personal taste, in which case there's nothing really justifying our own position either and we're just fighting for our personal preference, or we need some higher authority beyond ourselves/consensus/law that justifies our "don't kill people" position and condemns their "euthanize the parasites" position.
To me, morality seems to fall prey to Tarski's undefinability theorem. There can be no definition of moral truth within the system of morality. We need some external system to define moral truth.
> But at a level above law, what is the authority that determines that killing people is absolutely wrong and not just personally repugnant to the majority of the world's population?
I believe that you can strongly believe that witches should be killed and also know that you shouldn't do it, without having to subscribe to some universalising authority that tells you what to believe.
Generally speaking, people should act on their strong beliefs, but they need to do so aware of the fact that any one of their strong beliefs could be wrong. When it comes to something as serious and permanent as killing, then you should know that even a small chance of your strong belief being wrong is unacceptable and strong belief is therefore not a sufficient reason to do such a thing.
I believe that you can strongly believe that witches should be killed and also know that you shouldn't do it, without having to subscribe to some universalising authority that tells you what to believe.
Generally speaking, people should act on their strong beliefs, but they need to do so aware of the fact that any one of their strong beliefs could be wrong. When it comes to something as serious and permanent as killing, then you should know that even a small chance of your strong belief being wrong is unacceptable and strong belief is therefore not a sufficient reason to do such a thing.
> Although I agree, I think it's worth asking "why not?" to introspect our own position.
Well, sure, nothing wrong with asking the question, though the direct answer is pretty trivial: Because justification is by definition about reducing one claim to another (set of) claim(s), while "my moral code says I should kill witches" is simply a synonym for "I think I should kill witches", and as such just structurally is not a justification at all (as opposed to a bad or insufficient justification) when the question is "Why do you think you should kill witches?" because it just rephrases the same claim in different words.
> But at a level above law, what is the authority that determines that killing people is absolutely wrong and not just personally repugnant to the majority of the world's population?
That question doesn't really make sense to me. What does "absolute wrong" even mean? That seems like an undefined term to me. And why would this standard of an "absolute wrong" be something that we would have any use for?
> In other places and times laws might say, for instance, that to combat overpopulation we need to euthanize those under a certain threshold of contribution.
So?!
> To fight this, we either need to come to terms with the idea that morals and laws are just a matter of personal taste, in which case there's nothing really justifying our own position either and we're just fighting for our personal preference
That's both false and kindof self-contradictory.
A major part of justification is exactly about convincing other people, or you could say "fighting for our personal preference". In that regard, exactly that which convinces other people is the justification.
Another component of justification is about self-consistency and consistency with knowledge about the external world: Independently from trying to convince other people, you can try and find ways to falsify your moral claims, either by trying to find contradicting evidence in the external world, or by trying to identify internal inconsistencies within your moral framework. If you don't find any inconsistencies, that is a tentative justification for yourself.
> or we need some higher authority beyond ourselves/consensus/law that justifies our "don't kill people" position and condemns their "euthanize the parasites" position.
How would that solve anything? You just have pushed back the problem of justification to the question of why this particular authority should be the one to use as the standard, haven't you? I don't see how that would possibly be an alternative?!
> There can be no definition of moral truth within the system of morality. We need some external system to define moral truth.
That seems like a category mistake to me?! Why is moral truth something that needs to be defined, let alone defined within itself, rather than just something that needs to be discovered, and formulated as tentative conclusions subject to revision, as all empirical discovery is?
Well, sure, nothing wrong with asking the question, though the direct answer is pretty trivial: Because justification is by definition about reducing one claim to another (set of) claim(s), while "my moral code says I should kill witches" is simply a synonym for "I think I should kill witches", and as such just structurally is not a justification at all (as opposed to a bad or insufficient justification) when the question is "Why do you think you should kill witches?" because it just rephrases the same claim in different words.
> But at a level above law, what is the authority that determines that killing people is absolutely wrong and not just personally repugnant to the majority of the world's population?
That question doesn't really make sense to me. What does "absolute wrong" even mean? That seems like an undefined term to me. And why would this standard of an "absolute wrong" be something that we would have any use for?
> In other places and times laws might say, for instance, that to combat overpopulation we need to euthanize those under a certain threshold of contribution.
So?!
> To fight this, we either need to come to terms with the idea that morals and laws are just a matter of personal taste, in which case there's nothing really justifying our own position either and we're just fighting for our personal preference
That's both false and kindof self-contradictory.
A major part of justification is exactly about convincing other people, or you could say "fighting for our personal preference". In that regard, exactly that which convinces other people is the justification.
Another component of justification is about self-consistency and consistency with knowledge about the external world: Independently from trying to convince other people, you can try and find ways to falsify your moral claims, either by trying to find contradicting evidence in the external world, or by trying to identify internal inconsistencies within your moral framework. If you don't find any inconsistencies, that is a tentative justification for yourself.
> or we need some higher authority beyond ourselves/consensus/law that justifies our "don't kill people" position and condemns their "euthanize the parasites" position.
How would that solve anything? You just have pushed back the problem of justification to the question of why this particular authority should be the one to use as the standard, haven't you? I don't see how that would possibly be an alternative?!
> There can be no definition of moral truth within the system of morality. We need some external system to define moral truth.
That seems like a category mistake to me?! Why is moral truth something that needs to be defined, let alone defined within itself, rather than just something that needs to be discovered, and formulated as tentative conclusions subject to revision, as all empirical discovery is?
This is something I've been wrestling with as well. Several of my friends work for Google or Facebook.
I've discussed this at length with some of them. Several seem to object strongly to, for example, Congress's block of the FCC's proposed ISP privacy rules. Yet they work for companies which implement forms of tracking which are substantially similar. Some work directly on implementation of said tracking.
I find it frustrating since each and every one of them has other options. In the words of Jeff Hammerbacher: "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks."
I've discussed this at length with some of them. Several seem to object strongly to, for example, Congress's block of the FCC's proposed ISP privacy rules. Yet they work for companies which implement forms of tracking which are substantially similar. Some work directly on implementation of said tracking.
I find it frustrating since each and every one of them has other options. In the words of Jeff Hammerbacher: "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks."
People are more responsible for what they do than what their company does. I'd invite you to judge your peers more based on their individual choices than who pays them. If you are an American are you responsible for the evil of that nation? You'd probably say no. So goes with your tech friends.
Best advice is don't do this. Your friends are adults, and 1000 people work for a company for 1000 different reasons. It is a job after all. Not everyone is comfortable being given moral lectures.
Which justifies doing evil or letting people do evil how exactly?
Depends. If they are just writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem, why is that evil? TBH, calling out a person to quit just because one don't agree his/her employer's deeds before having a full understanding whether that person is directly involved or not, tells quite a lot about one's hubris.
> If they are just writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem, why is that evil?
Why should it be relevant whether you are "writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem"? Shouldn't the relevant question be whether your contribution is "net evil" or "net good"?
How would you suggest we defend against an institution dividing the work to build some hypothetical ultimate evil into thousands of "regular small pieces"? Would it help any of the victims of the ultimate evil that is was built by many individuals, each one of them building a "regular small piece", instead of by one mastermind alone?
Why should it be relevant whether you are "writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem"? Shouldn't the relevant question be whether your contribution is "net evil" or "net good"?
How would you suggest we defend against an institution dividing the work to build some hypothetical ultimate evil into thousands of "regular small pieces"? Would it help any of the victims of the ultimate evil that is was built by many individuals, each one of them building a "regular small piece", instead of by one mastermind alone?
Not everyone draws the line at the same spot. Everyone's constraints in life are different.
Also, talking from a position of "I know I am right. Why are you not thinking the same way as me?" is generally not effective at getting other people to see things from your perspective.
Also, talking from a position of "I know I am right. Why are you not thinking the same way as me?" is generally not effective at getting other people to see things from your perspective.
> Not everyone draws the line at the same spot.
Which is correct, but not a justification?
> Everyone's constraints in life are different.
In which case those constraints might be the justification, not simply the fact that their contribution is a small contribution, wouldn't it?
> Also, talking from a position of "I know I am right. Why are you not thinking the same way as me?" is generally not effective at getting other people to see things from your perspective.
Nor is staying within the constraints of the preconceived notions that make it impossible to see the problem with someone's position. But feel free to suggest alternative approaches to this problem that you have experience to be working better.
Which is correct, but not a justification?
> Everyone's constraints in life are different.
In which case those constraints might be the justification, not simply the fact that their contribution is a small contribution, wouldn't it?
> Also, talking from a position of "I know I am right. Why are you not thinking the same way as me?" is generally not effective at getting other people to see things from your perspective.
Nor is staying within the constraints of the preconceived notions that make it impossible to see the problem with someone's position. But feel free to suggest alternative approaches to this problem that you have experience to be working better.
The use of the word 'justification' tells me that you have already judged the actions and are looking for people to explain them. This ties into the last point I was trying to make. From this, it appears (to me) unlikely that our conversation will lead to us being in agreement: we see the world quite differently.
EDIT: Since you brought up the subject of what I could suggest, I'd like to add this: I'd just talk to people and see what they think: not in terms of "explain your actions" but in terms of "help me understand".
EDIT: Since you brought up the subject of what I could suggest, I'd like to add this: I'd just talk to people and see what they think: not in terms of "explain your actions" but in terms of "help me understand".
> The use of the word 'justification' tells me that you have already judged the actions and are looking for people to explain them.
Well, how else could things possibly work? Without any judgement on my part, I couldn't even know whether there is even anything I don't understand or that I disagree about, and what could I possibly expect other than that people explain their position to me?
> From this, it appears (to me) unlikely that our conversation will lead to us being in agreement: we see the world quite differently.
Which seems like a weird reason to me?! Aren't you essentially saying "we probably won't be in agreement because we are not in agreement"?!
> Since you brought up the subject of what I could suggest, I'd like to add this: I'd just talk to people and see what they think: not in terms of "explain your actions" but in terms of "help me understand".
Which are essentially synonyms? I mean, I can see that wording can make a difference in how people react, but I fail to see the fundamental difference between "explaining" and "helping to understand"?!
Well, how else could things possibly work? Without any judgement on my part, I couldn't even know whether there is even anything I don't understand or that I disagree about, and what could I possibly expect other than that people explain their position to me?
> From this, it appears (to me) unlikely that our conversation will lead to us being in agreement: we see the world quite differently.
Which seems like a weird reason to me?! Aren't you essentially saying "we probably won't be in agreement because we are not in agreement"?!
> Since you brought up the subject of what I could suggest, I'd like to add this: I'd just talk to people and see what they think: not in terms of "explain your actions" but in terms of "help me understand".
Which are essentially synonyms? I mean, I can see that wording can make a difference in how people react, but I fail to see the fundamental difference between "explaining" and "helping to understand"?!
As for why I think we can't come to an agreement, it's not because we are already in disagreement but because I believe (from this tiny conversation) that our views on things are so far apart that it's hard to bridge that gap in this medium and in a short period of time.
As for the last part, I'd like you to consider why people react differently to those wordings.
I've also observed that the wording doesn't matter if only the wording has changed but the attitude hasn't.
As for the last part, I'd like you to consider why people react differently to those wordings.
I've also observed that the wording doesn't matter if only the wording has changed but the attitude hasn't.
> As for why I think we can't come to an agreement, it's not because we are already in disagreement but because I believe (from this tiny conversation) that our views on things are so far apart that it's hard to bridge that gap in this medium and in a short period of time.
In which case I still don't see the point of bringing it up?! I mean, either you think it is worthwhile to discuss something, then you do, or you don't, then you don't. What's the point of engaging about something and then wasting bandwidth with explanations of why you think it's a waste of bandwidth?
> As for the last part, I'd like you to consider why people react differently to those wordings.
Now, are we talking about people as in "people out there" or as in you?
Because while I can see that different approaches are more useful when trying to reach different people, it seems to me a bit like you are trying to reject arguments on purely formal grounds even when you understand them perfectly well, which ultimately is just evasion and not sincere communication, and I don't see it as my job to overcome that artificial burden.
> I've also observed that the wording doesn't matter if only the wording has changed but the attitude hasn't.
So, what is the attitude that you imagine and how is it a problem?
In which case I still don't see the point of bringing it up?! I mean, either you think it is worthwhile to discuss something, then you do, or you don't, then you don't. What's the point of engaging about something and then wasting bandwidth with explanations of why you think it's a waste of bandwidth?
> As for the last part, I'd like you to consider why people react differently to those wordings.
Now, are we talking about people as in "people out there" or as in you?
Because while I can see that different approaches are more useful when trying to reach different people, it seems to me a bit like you are trying to reject arguments on purely formal grounds even when you understand them perfectly well, which ultimately is just evasion and not sincere communication, and I don't see it as my job to overcome that artificial burden.
> I've also observed that the wording doesn't matter if only the wording has changed but the attitude hasn't.
So, what is the attitude that you imagine and how is it a problem?
I agree. This conversation is a waste of bandwidth. I did say that it is going to be one. I tip my hat to you and leave this thread.
I once asked a guy who worked on control systems for missiles what he thought about the ethics of it. He looked confused and said 'I've never really thought about it until now'. We left it at that, but I consider it a win.
There's no reason to assume by default that any worker has thought about the ethical side of his job and is in it for anything more than a good paycheck and self-interest.
Techies included (and HN is good proof of that)
Techies included (and HN is good proof of that)
1. s/self-interest/short-sighted self-interest/
2. still, never thinking about it guarantees that you won't notice anything is wrong, so getting someone to think about it at all is a good thing in any case, for it opens the chance that they do
2. still, never thinking about it guarantees that you won't notice anything is wrong, so getting someone to think about it at all is a good thing in any case, for it opens the chance that they do
Is every single job at those companies really making the world worse in a way that other jobs aren't? How about all the technologies and research that have come out of specific teams' work?
Technologies are, to some extent more neutral. These people might not be doing much to make the world worse, but they are still pedalling along a bit.
I don't know how to respond to this. If you're a software engineer with a typical role at {insert "evil" company here} who is just trying to do the best in their role, are you making the world a better or a worse place? It's not like they're making the product decisions (and that's what I've been telling myself -- they're not the ones making the decisions; they're just implementing them), but it's also not like they aren't contributing to the "success" of their company. And certainly they could be working somewhere else that has a more positive role in making the world a better place. How do you draw a line?
What is the level of culpability for a foot soldier in the army of an evil dictator? What is the level if they committed no atrocities? How about if they were an active participant? How about if they were zealous and inspired new levels of atrocious behavior?
I don't have an answer and those are rhetorical questions. The point I'm laboring to make is that there are varied levels of culpability. There are also varied levels of evilness.
We like to see the world in binary fashion, I think. This may not be new, but it is getting a lot more visible. Look at the political arena and the divisions between the politically active.
Hmm... How to describe this?
If I make a post that supports the right of Nazis to speak freely, I'm assumed to be as evil as they are (by some) and should be punched in the face. Yet, if I am speaking with White Nationalists and post a comment that supports the right for AntiFa to speak freely, I'm called everything from a Jew to communist.
They don't actually take the time to stop and think that I'm not actually any of those things, that I'm just supporting the right to free speech - for everyone. If I'm not supporting Hillary, I'm supporting Trump - even though I voted for Stein.
So, there are varied levels of evil and good - yet people seem to often focus on the extremes. Is Google evil? Maybe, but they've made mountains of information easily discoverable at no direct financial costs to the end user. Is Facebook evil? Maybe, but they've enabled broad communication with family and friends you might never have had the means to maintain on your own. Is Microsoft evil? Maybe, but they've done more to make the personal computer ubiquitous than any other company.
It's very much a sliding scale and no company is completely evil, as is no one person. Well, except Oracle - they are pretty evil!
I guess where you draw the line is a personal thing and, like the rest, is on a sliding scale. It's easier to try to place things into boxes and label them good and evil, but that's intellectually lazy and not very accurate. Even the most evil companies aren't entirely evil.
shrugs
That's my takeaway, for what it's worth. I also try really hard to not judge or to control. I do have lines that can be crossed, but I try to be understanding and have empathy.
I'm not sure if this helps, but it works for me.
I don't have an answer and those are rhetorical questions. The point I'm laboring to make is that there are varied levels of culpability. There are also varied levels of evilness.
We like to see the world in binary fashion, I think. This may not be new, but it is getting a lot more visible. Look at the political arena and the divisions between the politically active.
Hmm... How to describe this?
If I make a post that supports the right of Nazis to speak freely, I'm assumed to be as evil as they are (by some) and should be punched in the face. Yet, if I am speaking with White Nationalists and post a comment that supports the right for AntiFa to speak freely, I'm called everything from a Jew to communist.
They don't actually take the time to stop and think that I'm not actually any of those things, that I'm just supporting the right to free speech - for everyone. If I'm not supporting Hillary, I'm supporting Trump - even though I voted for Stein.
So, there are varied levels of evil and good - yet people seem to often focus on the extremes. Is Google evil? Maybe, but they've made mountains of information easily discoverable at no direct financial costs to the end user. Is Facebook evil? Maybe, but they've enabled broad communication with family and friends you might never have had the means to maintain on your own. Is Microsoft evil? Maybe, but they've done more to make the personal computer ubiquitous than any other company.
It's very much a sliding scale and no company is completely evil, as is no one person. Well, except Oracle - they are pretty evil!
I guess where you draw the line is a personal thing and, like the rest, is on a sliding scale. It's easier to try to place things into boxes and label them good and evil, but that's intellectually lazy and not very accurate. Even the most evil companies aren't entirely evil.
shrugs
That's my takeaway, for what it's worth. I also try really hard to not judge or to control. I do have lines that can be crossed, but I try to be understanding and have empathy.
I'm not sure if this helps, but it works for me.
It seems to me that the basically religious concept of "evil" causes a lot of confusion.
What Google, Facebook, and Amazon are is primarily extremely powerful.
The U.S. government, say, does a lot of nasty, undesirable things; it also does a lot of benevolent, desirable things.
Working in these institutions means, to varying degrees, aligning yourself with the motives of extremely powerful entities.
But of course it also means potentially influencing that power in a way that you and your peers would recognize as benevolent.
Neither Google, Facebook, nor Amazon have core missions that are obviously bad, i.e., they are not directly opposed to a free society, they are not fundamentally violent, they are basically not the Nazi Party.
But they do share a core mission that is enormously expansive, kind of like the East India companies. Operationally, they are very likely to use some foul tactics in order to grow and compete.
As long as we have the global kind of capitalism where for-profit corporations grow into hyperobjects, it seems like we will have a top layer of quasi-monopolies using information technology and capital accumulation to dominate.
And according to the ideology, you can't really stop that without violating the principles of liberty. Basically to prevent such formations you need a powerful state, and that state will itself be such a formation, except with elections (hopefully, and maybe only nominally).
You might even need a global state-like entity, right?
If we use the word evil to describe Google, Facebook, and Amazon, I think we should rather say that the structure of capitalism is evil, and that'll get you into trouble.
Especially because this is a forum topically and structurally centered on the very impulse to launch exponentially growing IT firms.
This site is a promotional and educational wing of Y Combinator, which in its essence desires to be a recursively powerful generator of new mega-corporations, structurally bound to the multiplication of accumulated capital.
So, umm, yeah.
What Google, Facebook, and Amazon are is primarily extremely powerful.
The U.S. government, say, does a lot of nasty, undesirable things; it also does a lot of benevolent, desirable things.
Working in these institutions means, to varying degrees, aligning yourself with the motives of extremely powerful entities.
But of course it also means potentially influencing that power in a way that you and your peers would recognize as benevolent.
Neither Google, Facebook, nor Amazon have core missions that are obviously bad, i.e., they are not directly opposed to a free society, they are not fundamentally violent, they are basically not the Nazi Party.
But they do share a core mission that is enormously expansive, kind of like the East India companies. Operationally, they are very likely to use some foul tactics in order to grow and compete.
As long as we have the global kind of capitalism where for-profit corporations grow into hyperobjects, it seems like we will have a top layer of quasi-monopolies using information technology and capital accumulation to dominate.
And according to the ideology, you can't really stop that without violating the principles of liberty. Basically to prevent such formations you need a powerful state, and that state will itself be such a formation, except with elections (hopefully, and maybe only nominally).
You might even need a global state-like entity, right?
If we use the word evil to describe Google, Facebook, and Amazon, I think we should rather say that the structure of capitalism is evil, and that'll get you into trouble.
Especially because this is a forum topically and structurally centered on the very impulse to launch exponentially growing IT firms.
This site is a promotional and educational wing of Y Combinator, which in its essence desires to be a recursively powerful generator of new mega-corporations, structurally bound to the multiplication of accumulated capital.
So, umm, yeah.
The main issue with this argument is that you can't really choose the government you live in, especially if it's under a strong dictator (e.g. you can move from the US, you can't just from North Korea), but you can choose who you work for, especially when it deals with tech companies.
> Is Google evil? Maybe, but they've made mountains of information easily discoverable at no direct financial costs to the end user. Is Facebook evil? Maybe, but they've enabled broad communication with family and friends you might never have had the means to maintain on your own. Is Microsoft evil? Maybe, but they've done more to make the personal computer ubiquitous than any other company.
Or have they?
Just because a monopoly provides a useful service, doesn't mean that without that monopoly we wouldn't have that useful service, in which case their net contribution to society would not actually be that service, but just their monopoly power over the service, which is not exactly a net positive.
Or have they?
Just because a monopoly provides a useful service, doesn't mean that without that monopoly we wouldn't have that useful service, in which case their net contribution to society would not actually be that service, but just their monopoly power over the service, which is not exactly a net positive.
Soldiers typically have a duty to refuse immoral orders.
And what if the soldier was never given immoral orders but was a simple cook who fed those who carried out the orders?
I know what you're saying, but that's why I listed all those example questions. I listed them to show there are various levels of culpability and various levels of evil.
Where you draw the line is a personal thing and I'm not qualified to suggest where you draw it on an individual level.
I know what you're saying, but that's why I listed all those example questions. I listed them to show there are various levels of culpability and various levels of evil.
Where you draw the line is a personal thing and I'm not qualified to suggest where you draw it on an individual level.
Really, the important question is: What realistic chance did they have to not contribute without killing themselves? I guess one can argue about whether people should also be required to kill themselves to prevent evil, but that certainly is a good minimum.
A duty to whom? In most armies and wars, insisting to refuse an order, moral or not, will get you in front of a firing squad (or, if it's a really civilized army, in jail).
The allied powers collectively decided that I was just following orders was not a credible defence of anything during the Nuremberg trials.
I kind of see their point - under this defense, the only person you could really convict would be Hitler (everybody else was following orders). I'm guessing the logic here is that if you were for example a commander a Nazi death squad that was doing mass murders of Jews in Eastern Poland, then yeah, you were following orders, but you could have also asked to be transferred to something else.
I'm not sure this logic would hold for Soviet genocides though (not that they were tried at Nuremberg), as I suspect a hint of hestitation from say NKWD commander would probably result in him being promptly sent to Gulag to die. During Stalin's rule, pretty much everybody was operating with a gun to their heads at all times.
I'm not sure this logic would hold for Soviet genocides though (not that they were tried at Nuremberg), as I suspect a hint of hestitation from say NKWD commander would probably result in him being promptly sent to Gulag to die. During Stalin's rule, pretty much everybody was operating with a gun to their heads at all times.
I think the logic during the trials was that even if disobeying orders meant punishment such as torture or death, that was preferable to committing the crimes for which they were standing trial.
As in, your potential death or suffering at the hands of your superiors is also not a credible defence for what you did.
That obviously makes a lot more sense in the context of war crimes and crimes against humanity though.
As in, your potential death or suffering at the hands of your superiors is also not a credible defence for what you did.
That obviously makes a lot more sense in the context of war crimes and crimes against humanity though.
Well, it does depend on the army, I admit. And "immoral" was probably not a good term. More like "an order that seems to violate policy". But following illicit orders can also get you in trouble.
addHocker(1)
That sounds very much like the "just following" orders defence, also known as "Superior Orders". More details @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
Yeah I know. But it's also true that if they tried to do the opposite of what they were told (or if they just refused) then they'd get fired. So what do you do?
Just stop pretending that working at {Google, Facebook, Amazon, ...} is the highest goal that a tech person can strife for. A see a lot of students who seem to have that as their goal in life.
Also, we have to be honest with ourselves. While we (as a community) were hating Microsoft, we made Google our tech darling. Now they are ethically probably as rotten as Microsoft were in the early ~2000s. We should stop putting companies on pedestals. Then they might suck less talent out of other potential startups, academia, and non-profits and create a healthier economy.
I think practically this means investing in open standards, open source, and open networks (Mastodon for Twitter, MusicBrainz for CDDB, Openstreetmap for Google/Apple maps, etc.). Also, tech people and journalists should continue to expose bad behaviour of companies.
Also, we have to be honest with ourselves. While we (as a community) were hating Microsoft, we made Google our tech darling. Now they are ethically probably as rotten as Microsoft were in the early ~2000s. We should stop putting companies on pedestals. Then they might suck less talent out of other potential startups, academia, and non-profits and create a healthier economy.
I think practically this means investing in open standards, open source, and open networks (Mastodon for Twitter, MusicBrainz for CDDB, Openstreetmap for Google/Apple maps, etc.). Also, tech people and journalists should continue to expose bad behaviour of companies.
This is the thing I don't get. While certainly Google, Facebook, and Amazon are working on a lot of interesting problems, they're also big behemoths and your individual contribution isn't going to be all that noticeable.
At this point in my career I could likely get a job at any of the three of them if I wanted to and worked at it, but I'm not really sure I want to. I'd rather work at a smaller company where what I do every day actually matters as to whether or not the company will succeed or fail.
I guess that's just my preference, though; perhaps people like at G/F/A because they get to work on interesting projects without the stress associated with their output being a make-or-break for the company. And there's certainly more job security at a larger company than one that could more easily slip into hard times.
At this point in my career I could likely get a job at any of the three of them if I wanted to and worked at it, but I'm not really sure I want to. I'd rather work at a smaller company where what I do every day actually matters as to whether or not the company will succeed or fail.
I guess that's just my preference, though; perhaps people like at G/F/A because they get to work on interesting projects without the stress associated with their output being a make-or-break for the company. And there's certainly more job security at a larger company than one that could more easily slip into hard times.
> Just stop pretending that working at {Google, Facebook, Amazon, ...} is the highest goal that a tech person can strife for. A see a lot of students who seem to have that as their goal in life.
It's not, you have to admit, a terrible goal. Granted, a lot of the people at the big 4 do rather mundane things but there are also opportunities at those places to build software that (literally) affects the whole world and leave lasting contributions to the software engineering field for those with the talent and drive.
> Also, we have to be honest with ourselves. While we (as a community) were hating Microsoft, we made Google our tech darling. Now they are ethically probably as rotten as Microsoft were in the early ~2000s.
I'm incredibly amused to see people starting to say this because I've been around enough to remember when IBM was the "ethically rotten" behemoth and Microsoft was the tech darling who saved us from their evil clutches; the more things change, the more they stay the same. I don't think people will stop putting companies on a pedestal; it makes for too compelling a narrative.
Who will be the new tech darling to save us from Google's evil clutches?
It's not, you have to admit, a terrible goal. Granted, a lot of the people at the big 4 do rather mundane things but there are also opportunities at those places to build software that (literally) affects the whole world and leave lasting contributions to the software engineering field for those with the talent and drive.
> Also, we have to be honest with ourselves. While we (as a community) were hating Microsoft, we made Google our tech darling. Now they are ethically probably as rotten as Microsoft were in the early ~2000s.
I'm incredibly amused to see people starting to say this because I've been around enough to remember when IBM was the "ethically rotten" behemoth and Microsoft was the tech darling who saved us from their evil clutches; the more things change, the more they stay the same. I don't think people will stop putting companies on a pedestal; it makes for too compelling a narrative.
Who will be the new tech darling to save us from Google's evil clutches?
A see a lot of students who seem to have that as their goal in life.
I wonder if that really is their goal? I think if you pushed them on it you'll probably find that their true life goal was to earn a massive salary while hanging out with smart people and fucking around with cool tech. It just so happens that (they believe that) {Google, Facebook, Amazon, ...} will offer them that.
I suspect there is a good reason that Google, Facebook etc. structure their work setting on an idealized version of the university campus.
I wonder if that really is their goal? I think if you pushed them on it you'll probably find that their true life goal was to earn a massive salary while hanging out with smart people and fucking around with cool tech. It just so happens that (they believe that) {Google, Facebook, Amazon, ...} will offer them that.
I suspect there is a good reason that Google, Facebook etc. structure their work setting on an idealized version of the university campus.
I wonder if that really is their goal?
The aspects that you mention definitely count as well, but I think that prestige is a large part of it (both in the field and among family/friends).
The aspects that you mention definitely count as well, but I think that prestige is a large part of it (both in the field and among family/friends).
They will also provide free food, a laundry service, etc. It's basically like having your mother look after you!
The most productive thing: Voice dissent. Ensure the higher-ups have thought through their position and the consequences. Assume they know things you don't. Ultimately, follow the order.
Once it's their call, you're absolved of any responsibility. Both morally and in every meaningful sense.
Once it's their call, you're absolved of any responsibility. Both morally and in every meaningful sense.
Once it's their call, you're absolved of any responsibility. Both morally and in every meaningful sense.
Uhm, no? You have another choice: not working for companies that work as privatised spying agencies.
Uhm, no? You have another choice: not working for companies that work as privatised spying agencies.
> Once it's their call, you're absolved of any responsibility. Both morally and in every meaningful sense.
WTF? There are still people who haven't grasped that that is basically the recipe for all man-made humanitarian catastophes in human history?
WTF? There are still people who haven't grasped that that is basically the recipe for all man-made humanitarian catastophes in human history?
You need to draw the line somewhere, though.
As an extreme example, if a company I worked at decided that they were going to murder someone, I would certainly voice my dissent. If they decided to continue to go through with it, I'd quit.
Sure, that's a bit hyperbolic, but consider companies like Palantir that work on things that actively erode citizen privacy. I'd never work at a company like that, and if my employer suddenly shifted gears to work on things like that, I'd quit.
"Following orders" is for the military... and even then I would hope someone in the armed forces would refuse to comply with an unlawful or otherwise morally horrible order.
As an extreme example, if a company I worked at decided that they were going to murder someone, I would certainly voice my dissent. If they decided to continue to go through with it, I'd quit.
Sure, that's a bit hyperbolic, but consider companies like Palantir that work on things that actively erode citizen privacy. I'd never work at a company like that, and if my employer suddenly shifted gears to work on things like that, I'd quit.
"Following orders" is for the military... and even then I would hope someone in the armed forces would refuse to comply with an unlawful or otherwise morally horrible order.
Okay, so how do I get my friends to do that is the question. Conveying this requires getting them to admit there is something wrong with what their employer is doing in the first place, and at that point I'd be already past the obstacle I'm trying to figure out how to overcome.
After reading most of the comments, I think you tell them bluntly what you're thinking.
If they listen to you, maybe they'll quit. If you lose their friendship, you can make new ones who don't work for evil companies.
And if they keep doing evil things for a living but still want to be your friend, maybe you should be the one to end the friendship. I've done that a few times. It gets easier with practice.
If they listen to you, maybe they'll quit. If you lose their friendship, you can make new ones who don't work for evil companies.
And if they keep doing evil things for a living but still want to be your friend, maybe you should be the one to end the friendship. I've done that a few times. It gets easier with practice.
If they listen to you, maybe they'll quit. If you lose their friendship, you can make new ones who don't work for evil companies.
This is what I meant by "Don't try to control your friends."
If you don't let your friends have radically different beliefs from your own, you're just making an echo chamber for yourself.
This is what I meant by "Don't try to control your friends."
If you don't let your friends have radically different beliefs from your own, you're just making an echo chamber for yourself.
If your intent is to improve the world, and not just act superior, I don't see what this accomplishes. Hear dissent without action long enough and it becomes noise.
That sounds ridiculously cynical and half-arsed to me.
This accomplishes nothing.
This accomplishes nothing.
Higherups will usually defend by hiding behind the process - aka the virtual will and orders of the social golem that is a company.
And nobody alone is responsible for the process. There is not necessary a feeling of responsibility on top- just because powers are granted by the process.
And nobody alone is responsible for the process. There is not necessary a feeling of responsibility on top- just because powers are granted by the process.
As Lord Varys convinced himself- "I am not the one doing it."
Search makes the world better, using search placement to drive competitors out of the market makes the world worse. So the same company could have both good and evil parts. The internal decision makers shape the overall alignment of the company.
Market can't fix that, especially when there are almost monopolistic positions. Regulations can. Maybe there are other ways but don't count on boycotts or things like that. See how much people is ready to give away for convenience (e.g. privacy.)
Market can't fix that, especially when there are almost monopolistic positions. Regulations can. Maybe there are other ways but don't count on boycotts or things like that. See how much people is ready to give away for convenience (e.g. privacy.)
Most of the research coming out of SV tech companies nowadays is yet annother chat platform, and reimplementing broken C code in broken JavaScript code.
Is it making the World a better place? I don't think so. Is it making it a worse place? Only for other developers :)
Is it making the World a better place? I don't think so. Is it making it a worse place? Only for other developers :)
> Most of the research coming out of SV tech companies nowadays is yet annother chat platform, and reimplementing broken C code in broken JavaScript code.
I don't think so, there is a lot of stuff happening in a place that called SV. Maybe you are referring to the cool startup bunch?
I don't think so, there is a lot of stuff happening in a place that called SV. Maybe you are referring to the cool startup bunch?
Indeed I do, but also many other unnecessary innovations came out of SV, as well as some interesting Research, which end up used for solving problems which don't exist.
What's wrong with unnecessary innovations? There were lots of inventions/discoveries that didn't solve any existing problem during their time of discovery.
Their marketing is annoying me.
Thing is, if not me, then someone else. At least I am aware of the issues and can try to limit them as much as possible. I'm still bound to my salary, but at least I have ethics. The next one they get might not.
What do you consider an evil company though? Are Google and Facebook evil, because they don't preserve your privacy? I certainly don't consider them evil, but you might. Maybe they just have a different idea of evil than you. Or maybe they don't really care too much, and are OK working for an "evil" company if they are making tonnes of money doing it.
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
- Upton Sinclair
- Upton Sinclair
You understand that they are employees and not employers? Are you self-employed/entrepreneur or do you have a passive income?
> It sucks even more that these are some of the kindest and most caring people I know, with better moral character than myself
Evidently not? I'd really be curious how you come to that conclusion, when they apparently don't have the first clue as to how to recognize evil, nor do they seem to care? Are you sure that that's not just the image they promote of themselves, rather than an actual assessment of their behaviour?
Evidently not? I'd really be curious how you come to that conclusion, when they apparently don't have the first clue as to how to recognize evil, nor do they seem to care? Are you sure that that's not just the image they promote of themselves, rather than an actual assessment of their behaviour?
> Evidently not? I'd really be curious how you come to that conclusion
Uhm... what sort of a response are you expecting that could convince you here?
> when they apparently don't have the first clue as to how to recognize evil, nor do they seem to care?
How are you so certain that I'm recognizing the evil correctly in the first place? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to first question that before questioning my assessment of my friends' character?
> Are you sure that that's not just the image they promote of themselves, rather than an actual assessment of their behaviour?
How high of a bar is "sure" for you? I'm not even "sure" I understand all of my own parents' motivations in life well, let alone my friends'. The way you phrase your question I don't get the impression I could meet that bar realistically about anyone. I can say I'm "sure" enough that I'm considering the possibility of them getting brainwashed as significantly more likely than them having poor moral character. Not sure what other metric I can use really.
Uhm... what sort of a response are you expecting that could convince you here?
> when they apparently don't have the first clue as to how to recognize evil, nor do they seem to care?
How are you so certain that I'm recognizing the evil correctly in the first place? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to first question that before questioning my assessment of my friends' character?
> Are you sure that that's not just the image they promote of themselves, rather than an actual assessment of their behaviour?
How high of a bar is "sure" for you? I'm not even "sure" I understand all of my own parents' motivations in life well, let alone my friends'. The way you phrase your question I don't get the impression I could meet that bar realistically about anyone. I can say I'm "sure" enough that I'm considering the possibility of them getting brainwashed as significantly more likely than them having poor moral character. Not sure what other metric I can use really.
> Uhm... what sort of a response are you expecting that could convince you here?
Well, some sort of reasoning? Like, what do you observe about these friends that leads you to that conclusion?
> How are you so certain that I'm recognizing the evil correctly in the first place? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to first question that before questioning my assessment of my friends' character?
I'm not sure why there should be a priority between those question?! It's certainly a valid question, but I just accepted your premise in that regard for the sake of the discussion. After all, I am not trying to come to a conclusion about your friends (whom I don't know anyway), but rather I am trying to understand how you reconcile your observation that they are doing something that you would consider evil with the conclusion that they are of "better moral character than [your]self". To me it seems like that would be a contradiction in terms.
I guess I could also just ask what you mean by "good moral character", that this does not cause a contradiction?
> How high of a bar is "sure" for you? I'm not even "sure" I understand all of my own parents' motivations in life well, let alone my friends'. The way you phrase your question I don't get the impression I could meet that bar realistically about anyone.
I guess I meant something along the lines of "reasonably sure". But also, this wasn't so much a question about your friends, but a question about you: How do you come to the conclusion that they are of "better moral character"? What about those friends makes you think that? And have you considered whether your conclusion isn't more based on what they claim to be, rather than on what you have actually observed them to be?
> I can say I'm "sure" enough that I'm considering the possibility of them getting brainwashed as significantly more likely than them having poor moral character.
I guess that goes back to the question of what your definition of "moral character" is, but wouldn't brainwashing impair moral character?
Well, some sort of reasoning? Like, what do you observe about these friends that leads you to that conclusion?
> How are you so certain that I'm recognizing the evil correctly in the first place? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to first question that before questioning my assessment of my friends' character?
I'm not sure why there should be a priority between those question?! It's certainly a valid question, but I just accepted your premise in that regard for the sake of the discussion. After all, I am not trying to come to a conclusion about your friends (whom I don't know anyway), but rather I am trying to understand how you reconcile your observation that they are doing something that you would consider evil with the conclusion that they are of "better moral character than [your]self". To me it seems like that would be a contradiction in terms.
I guess I could also just ask what you mean by "good moral character", that this does not cause a contradiction?
> How high of a bar is "sure" for you? I'm not even "sure" I understand all of my own parents' motivations in life well, let alone my friends'. The way you phrase your question I don't get the impression I could meet that bar realistically about anyone.
I guess I meant something along the lines of "reasonably sure". But also, this wasn't so much a question about your friends, but a question about you: How do you come to the conclusion that they are of "better moral character"? What about those friends makes you think that? And have you considered whether your conclusion isn't more based on what they claim to be, rather than on what you have actually observed them to be?
> I can say I'm "sure" enough that I'm considering the possibility of them getting brainwashed as significantly more likely than them having poor moral character.
I guess that goes back to the question of what your definition of "moral character" is, but wouldn't brainwashing impair moral character?
This is dangerous.
You are slipping in an assumption that the moral character of people is well reflected by the social institutions they belong to. Nothing I have seen about the world, or read about history gives the slightest hint favouring that assumption.
Worse, you are implying that people should be judged by what social context they exist in. It seems far more likely that good people and bad people can end up in all sorts of situtions.
You are slipping in an assumption that the moral character of people is well reflected by the social institutions they belong to. Nothing I have seen about the world, or read about history gives the slightest hint favouring that assumption.
Worse, you are implying that people should be judged by what social context they exist in. It seems far more likely that good people and bad people can end up in all sorts of situtions.
> You are slipping in an assumption that the moral character of people is well reflected by the social institutions they belong to. Nothing I have seen about the world, or read about history gives the slightest hint favouring that assumption.
Do you think that still holds when you only consider those cases that people actually realistically had control over, and also exclude those who intentionally worked to subvert the institution they were nominally a part of? After all, being the member of a totalitarian state that doesn't allow you to leave the country is a bit of a different thing than signing an employment contract in the US, and I highly suspect that the people we are talking about here also are not in the class of people intentionally subverting the companies they work in, because chances are friends who care about this would know.
> Worse, you are implying that people should be judged by what social context they exist in. It seems far more likely that good people and bad people can end up in all sorts of situtions.
Well, not as black and white as you make it out to be, that's just a simplification for the sake of being able to discuss things at all. But I absolutely think that social context is significantly correlated with how people should be judged, yes.
Also, what exactly do you mean by "moral character"? I don't think it's a particularly well-defined term.
Do you think that still holds when you only consider those cases that people actually realistically had control over, and also exclude those who intentionally worked to subvert the institution they were nominally a part of? After all, being the member of a totalitarian state that doesn't allow you to leave the country is a bit of a different thing than signing an employment contract in the US, and I highly suspect that the people we are talking about here also are not in the class of people intentionally subverting the companies they work in, because chances are friends who care about this would know.
> Worse, you are implying that people should be judged by what social context they exist in. It seems far more likely that good people and bad people can end up in all sorts of situtions.
Well, not as black and white as you make it out to be, that's just a simplification for the sake of being able to discuss things at all. But I absolutely think that social context is significantly correlated with how people should be judged, yes.
Also, what exactly do you mean by "moral character"? I don't think it's a particularly well-defined term.
Data Science is evil :)
There are a couple of big "tech-is-evil" forces that I think are responsible for a good chunk of this sentiment.
The first is advertising. Ads are slightly evil anyway. You're going to make us watch an ad during intermission, and that'll make us buy your brand of washing powder? Sounds kind of evil. It never sat right with people, but it funded free news and entertainment so... we're used to this now.
In "tech", Google & FB's ecosystem of modern advertising is all about individuals. It's far more efficient, so long as you have lots of data. Mad Men & mass appeal out. Data nerds in.
The 2nd evil is "optimization." Data Science determines what you see on FB & Google, info bubbles, etc.. These make decisions based on what humans might call "values." The evil data nerds call them optimization goals. If I email you a saucy sentence about your sister's poi...[read more] at 7:36 will you check FB before your morning piss? Do you post more when you're angered or incensed? Insulted or pandered to?
Evil, no? At least distasteful.. Data nerds!
So... data science is evil and the only way to stop it is a total ban numbers.
There are a couple of big "tech-is-evil" forces that I think are responsible for a good chunk of this sentiment.
The first is advertising. Ads are slightly evil anyway. You're going to make us watch an ad during intermission, and that'll make us buy your brand of washing powder? Sounds kind of evil. It never sat right with people, but it funded free news and entertainment so... we're used to this now.
In "tech", Google & FB's ecosystem of modern advertising is all about individuals. It's far more efficient, so long as you have lots of data. Mad Men & mass appeal out. Data nerds in.
The 2nd evil is "optimization." Data Science determines what you see on FB & Google, info bubbles, etc.. These make decisions based on what humans might call "values." The evil data nerds call them optimization goals. If I email you a saucy sentence about your sister's poi...[read more] at 7:36 will you check FB before your morning piss? Do you post more when you're angered or incensed? Insulted or pandered to?
Evil, no? At least distasteful.. Data nerds!
So... data science is evil and the only way to stop it is a total ban numbers.
Using ML/DS to de-anonymize people is very definitely evil.
It's far more efficient
I'm not sure we know this yet. They sell it like it is, and it seems like a good idea that makes sense, but at this point online ads perform in the same way as TV ads: They give us brand exposure. Most of the time I do an internet search I am not trying to purchase something, and I've never seen an ad that made me say as a result of that search "I need that" and make a purchase.
When I'm doing an internet search I am looking for information. When I want to buy something I go to Amazon and search their inventory. From everything I've seen on HN I'm not alone in this.
I'm not sure we know this yet. They sell it like it is, and it seems like a good idea that makes sense, but at this point online ads perform in the same way as TV ads: They give us brand exposure. Most of the time I do an internet search I am not trying to purchase something, and I've never seen an ad that made me say as a result of that search "I need that" and make a purchase.
When I'm doing an internet search I am looking for information. When I want to buy something I go to Amazon and search their inventory. From everything I've seen on HN I'm not alone in this.
[deleted]
> So... data science is evil and the only way to stop it is a total ban numbers.
Nah. Banning collecting, storing, and exploiting data on people for any but a small set of very narrow purposes would do the trick.
Nah. Banning collecting, storing, and exploiting data on people for any but a small set of very narrow purposes would do the trick.
”Small set of very narrow purposes” or even “data” are too difficult to define legally. There’ll be loopholes to exploit.
Better safe than sorry. No numbers. No nerds. No evil.
Better safe than sorry. No numbers. No nerds. No evil.
> ”Small set of very narrow purposes” or even “data” are too difficult to define legally. There’ll be loopholes to exploit.
Eh, not really. I don't see how you can maintain this position without concluding that laws aren't possible at all. And laws aren't code. Judges can and do smack people down for being too "clever" in how they interpret them. The 5-year-old's "I'm not touching you!" defense generally doesn't work.
Frankly I can't tell if you're actually advocating such a ban on "numbers" or trying to reductio any notions of regulation of data collection and use to death. If the latter, I think you'll need to try harder. I find it fairly easy to imagine laws that'd make collecting people's data something most businesses try to avoid unless they absolutely must have it to operate, and in the latter case severely restricts the kinds of commerce they can engage in while holding said data.
If skirting regulations that happens to involve words that are intended to mean things (so, all regulations) were so trivial companies wouldn't be so concerned about them, I think. Fact is lots of regulations are inconvenient to them, and involve terms no less inherently ambiguous than the ones you called out, which are nevertheless refined and defined to sufficient precision to be effective.
Eh, not really. I don't see how you can maintain this position without concluding that laws aren't possible at all. And laws aren't code. Judges can and do smack people down for being too "clever" in how they interpret them. The 5-year-old's "I'm not touching you!" defense generally doesn't work.
Frankly I can't tell if you're actually advocating such a ban on "numbers" or trying to reductio any notions of regulation of data collection and use to death. If the latter, I think you'll need to try harder. I find it fairly easy to imagine laws that'd make collecting people's data something most businesses try to avoid unless they absolutely must have it to operate, and in the latter case severely restricts the kinds of commerce they can engage in while holding said data.
If skirting regulations that happens to involve words that are intended to mean things (so, all regulations) were so trivial companies wouldn't be so concerned about them, I think. Fact is lots of regulations are inconvenient to them, and involve terms no less inherently ambiguous than the ones you called out, which are nevertheless refined and defined to sufficient precision to be effective.
>>I can't tell if you're actually advocating...
I'm just being silly, mostly. I don't the answers.
I have been involved with legislation a little though, and quite a lot with “regulations” (in the regulated industries sense).
The 5 year old defence holds water in a surprising number of cases. The problem of definitions in law is real, and kind of reminiscent of the problem of specifications in software.
For example, defining “allowable uses” is tricky because determining intent is (notoriously) tricky in law.
Legislation is a tool. It has lots of hangups, a legacy from thousands of years of history. It’s not always the best tool for the job. I’m not an anarchist, I just feel we’re get more milage from better browser behaviour and defaults than laws in this particular instance.
I'm just being silly, mostly. I don't the answers.
I have been involved with legislation a little though, and quite a lot with “regulations” (in the regulated industries sense).
The 5 year old defence holds water in a surprising number of cases. The problem of definitions in law is real, and kind of reminiscent of the problem of specifications in software.
For example, defining “allowable uses” is tricky because determining intent is (notoriously) tricky in law.
Legislation is a tool. It has lots of hangups, a legacy from thousands of years of history. It’s not always the best tool for the job. I’m not an anarchist, I just feel we’re get more milage from better browser behaviour and defaults than laws in this particular instance.
> Legislation is a tool. It has lots of hangups, a legacy from thousands of years of history. It’s not always the best tool for the job. I’m not an anarchist, I just feel we’re get more milage from better browser behaviour and defaults than laws in this particular instance.
I care about a lot more than browser data, though. I don't really care how they're getting the data, I think they shouldn't be able to, and if they do it should be because they have to have it in order to provide a service to their customers, and they should be so strictly limited in what they can do with that data that conducting any business unrelated to it is incredibly risky even if they don't intentionally leverage it to their advantage. Credit card companies collecting & selling data, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, banks, magazines selling subscriber lists, cable companies selling your data, all of it should be banned. When collecting user data can't be avoided, it should come with scaling, large bond or escrow requirements to cover customer damages (which ought to be set at a high level with the leak itself considered damaging, no further proof of damage required) in the case of leaks. I want companies to treat personal data of users as something like nuclear waste: try not to make any if possible, and spend a lot of money making sure it's safe if you must keep it around.
I care about a lot more than browser data, though. I don't really care how they're getting the data, I think they shouldn't be able to, and if they do it should be because they have to have it in order to provide a service to their customers, and they should be so strictly limited in what they can do with that data that conducting any business unrelated to it is incredibly risky even if they don't intentionally leverage it to their advantage. Credit card companies collecting & selling data, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, banks, magazines selling subscriber lists, cable companies selling your data, all of it should be banned. When collecting user data can't be avoided, it should come with scaling, large bond or escrow requirements to cover customer damages (which ought to be set at a high level with the leak itself considered damaging, no further proof of damage required) in the case of leaks. I want companies to treat personal data of users as something like nuclear waste: try not to make any if possible, and spend a lot of money making sure it's safe if you must keep it around.
Can we still ban numbers though?
More evil than any of the following?
* Banking
* Mining
* Clothing
* Pharmaceuticals
* Media
* Agriculture
etc.
Every industry has its good points and bad points, good people and bad people. Moreover, what one person thinks is evil another might think is completely harmless or even a good thing.
I suspect our discomfort is more with big businesses making massive amounts of money. That has more to do with modern capitalism in general, than the tech sector per se.
* Banking
* Mining
* Clothing
* Pharmaceuticals
* Media
* Agriculture
etc.
Every industry has its good points and bad points, good people and bad people. Moreover, what one person thinks is evil another might think is completely harmless or even a good thing.
I suspect our discomfort is more with big businesses making massive amounts of money. That has more to do with modern capitalism in general, than the tech sector per se.
Evil is as evil does.
>The other thing that’s new is that they’re thought leaders who are progressives and liberals; just like most of us in the tech profession
I think most people in tech are probably more moderate-to-liberal and it's that progressives are the loudest voices politically right now, so it seems like tech is more left leaning than it is. Also, tech exists in places other than the coasts.
I think most people in tech are probably more moderate-to-liberal and it's that progressives are the loudest voices politically right now, so it seems like tech is more left leaning than it is. Also, tech exists in places other than the coasts.
I tend to be conservative, and I work in tech.
It feels to me like a repressive atmosphere. Conservatives are muzzled or eliminated.
It's not a healthy environment for anyone.
Anecdotally I've never seen any evidence of people being 'eliminated' for their political beliefs, but the feeling of being muzzled seems to be common among the quieter conservatives I know in tech.
Calling yourself a conservative is meaningless.
The US has shifted away from being a republic to being more of an oligarchy over the last 30 years. So if you are a supporter of oligarchs stand up and be counted.
If you are a fiscal conservative you should be pissed that the republicans put the country farther in debt than the democrats do.
If you are a social conservative, what the fuck is wrong with you? If you want to live like the Amish, go for it. But you dont see the Amish trying to impose their way of life on others do you?
So yes, people who's ideas feel repressive or too far out there either learn to monitor their own extreme ideas or they are shunned. That's how a civil society works.
The US has shifted away from being a republic to being more of an oligarchy over the last 30 years. So if you are a supporter of oligarchs stand up and be counted.
If you are a fiscal conservative you should be pissed that the republicans put the country farther in debt than the democrats do.
If you are a social conservative, what the fuck is wrong with you? If you want to live like the Amish, go for it. But you dont see the Amish trying to impose their way of life on others do you?
So yes, people who's ideas feel repressive or too far out there either learn to monitor their own extreme ideas or they are shunned. That's how a civil society works.
While you may have valid points, your tone is aggressive, emotional, and unproductive.
> people who's ideas feel repressive or too far out there either learn to monitor their own extreme ideas or they are shunned. That's how a civil society works.
This can be taken too far, however. Complete suppression of nonpopular views can maintain an unproductive status quo, and may lead to authoritarianism.
> people who's ideas feel repressive or too far out there either learn to monitor their own extreme ideas or they are shunned. That's how a civil society works.
This can be taken too far, however. Complete suppression of nonpopular views can maintain an unproductive status quo, and may lead to authoritarianism.
But indeed is that not what you just did with me? Tried to moderate it so that it feels less aggressive and more comfortable.
I didn't suppress your main idea, I just critiqued the way in which you conveyed it. Highly emotional posts on this site aren't good because of the voting system; comments become voted on not because of their merit or contribution to the conversation, but because the reader agrees or disagrees with them, which is fine for sites like Reddit, but we try to maintain a more thoughtful culture on this site. If we want to advance the conversation, the best way to do that is to focus on the logic that determined your opinion instead of the emotion.
[deleted]
The progressive attitude of tech is an expression of cognitive dissonance. Sure, it'd be great if (eg:) Google hit their diversity goals, but that's not my point. Other than avoiding bad press and making money, what can convince huge bureaucracies to care so much about progressive bugbears?
I propose that it's a way to ignore how disgusting the software they've built is. Rather than address the monster in their basement of their own creation, they looked to the next-closest moral fight they could find and went full tilt on saving the world from that. The location of their headquarters per-determined the particular fights they would choose. Frantic activity as a defense against change.
I propose that it's a way to ignore how disgusting the software they've built is. Rather than address the monster in their basement of their own creation, they looked to the next-closest moral fight they could find and went full tilt on saving the world from that. The location of their headquarters per-determined the particular fights they would choose. Frantic activity as a defense against change.
I'm really struggling to put into words how much this recent "moral" crusade against Facebook/Google/Amazon has begun to irritate me. My gut feeling is that unable to do anything about Trumps election victory all those enraged by his win are now turning their ire against companies that tangentially might have helped to get him elected.
I don't think those two things are related. This issue actually touches both sides. Steve Bannon was looking at anti-trust issues in the administration and Trump has raised similar issues about Amazon [1][2].
[1] https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-faceb...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/steve...
[1] https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-faceb...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/steve...
I'd wager that has more to do with Bezos's ownership of the Washington Post rather than any anti-trust concerns the administration has about Amazon
Regulation and oversight is good. Continually reevaluating whether these companies are being good stewards of the information they hold is also good.
But I worry more about a heavy-handed overreaction than the present course we're on. In many ways it could be more dangerous to cripple or break up these companies: Fragmenting that data among smaller entities with weaker security is bad. Letting the vacuum (probably) be filled by state owned enterprises from regimes that don't value democracy, privacy or rights is very bad.
Yes, these companies could become an insurmountable runaway evil... but they have a long way to go to get there. The revolt would be even more intense if they were actually trying to do anything other than stay relevant. Which raises the final point... they will eventually stumble, get disrupted, dwindle. If they're going to die, let them die naturally -- don't be preemptive and destructive about it.
TLDR: let's hope for US vs Microsoft, not the break up of Bell Systems
But I worry more about a heavy-handed overreaction than the present course we're on. In many ways it could be more dangerous to cripple or break up these companies: Fragmenting that data among smaller entities with weaker security is bad. Letting the vacuum (probably) be filled by state owned enterprises from regimes that don't value democracy, privacy or rights is very bad.
Yes, these companies could become an insurmountable runaway evil... but they have a long way to go to get there. The revolt would be even more intense if they were actually trying to do anything other than stay relevant. Which raises the final point... they will eventually stumble, get disrupted, dwindle. If they're going to die, let them die naturally -- don't be preemptive and destructive about it.
TLDR: let's hope for US vs Microsoft, not the break up of Bell Systems
very much this. I think the how people view companies as a whole as "evil" is alarming. Technology is neutral, and companies make the world better and worse.
Technology is only neutral if built to be neutral. People build non-neutral technology all the time, either intentionally or unintentionally.
If you take a huge random data set and train an algorithm off it, the algorithm is going to reflect the biases of the data, even though the algorithm - and the technology used to run the algorithm - is completely neutral in theory. If you accept this as a problem and try to solve it, you're taking an explicit stance of non-neutrality - something is wrong with the output of this algorithm based on my criteria, regardless of whether it is implemented correctly.
For many real-world situations, neutral technology is the opposite of what is required to solve problems. Which is a real bummer, since it means that you have to make difficult decisions in addition to building a good piece of technology.
Governments are already using "neutral" technology to make important decisions about people's lives [1]. But how neutral is it, really, if the data we feed into it for training is biased or incorrect?
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/backlash-in-wisconsin-...
If you take a huge random data set and train an algorithm off it, the algorithm is going to reflect the biases of the data, even though the algorithm - and the technology used to run the algorithm - is completely neutral in theory. If you accept this as a problem and try to solve it, you're taking an explicit stance of non-neutrality - something is wrong with the output of this algorithm based on my criteria, regardless of whether it is implemented correctly.
For many real-world situations, neutral technology is the opposite of what is required to solve problems. Which is a real bummer, since it means that you have to make difficult decisions in addition to building a good piece of technology.
Governments are already using "neutral" technology to make important decisions about people's lives [1]. But how neutral is it, really, if the data we feed into it for training is biased or incorrect?
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/backlash-in-wisconsin-...
Curious how “There is growing concern … about bigness and size, and power because power corrupts absolutely” among the growing fan club of a representative of the ultimate accumulation of bigness, size, and power: the government.
There's a case to be made that the largest tech companies are now larger and more powerful than many governments. Google estimates that there are now more than two billion active Android devices, and there's a similar number of active Facebook users.
Obviously it's not just about numbers. Google and Facebook can't imprison you or raise an army. But when you consider their influence on communications, their ability to lobby governments, and in some cases their tendency to work around laws (I'm thinking of Uber's 'Greyball'), the idea that the government is the ultimate accumulation of size and power doesn't seem so clear, especially outside the US.
Obviously it's not just about numbers. Google and Facebook can't imprison you or raise an army. But when you consider their influence on communications, their ability to lobby governments, and in some cases their tendency to work around laws (I'm thinking of Uber's 'Greyball'), the idea that the government is the ultimate accumulation of size and power doesn't seem so clear, especially outside the US.
The issue is that the government is ultimately supposed to be responsible to society at large whole a company is supposed to be responsible for its shareholders. If a government is screwing over the vulnerable or some minority (whether in discrimination terms or just "those people in that city who's water system we fucked up") because they ignored externalities or decided to cut costs they're failing at their job, while for a corporation their explicit goal is to serve their minority of shareholders and if they can cut costs at the cost of societal impacts, well, that's just good business.
Governments, at least in the West, are elected and have a public mission compared to places like Google
He links to a very long Atlantic article about Tristan Harris’ views on how we should control our attention.
After reading and reading and reading about things like “he met me flushed from a Yoga class” and getting more and more frustrated trying to sift out the useful political message, it occurred to me that this was an article designed to hook into humans’ inherent need for narrative and protagonists.
After reading and reading and reading about things like “he met me flushed from a Yoga class” and getting more and more frustrated trying to sift out the useful political message, it occurred to me that this was an article designed to hook into humans’ inherent need for narrative and protagonists.
I think the concerns in the post are overstated. These "monopolies" aren't as strong as suggested, and tech is certainly not the only industry often targeted with similar claims.
It's probably more accurate to say that some people have an innate dislike of large corporations, which I can understand, but falls short of "the tech sector might be evil."
It's probably more accurate to say that some people have an innate dislike of large corporations, which I can understand, but falls short of "the tech sector might be evil."
I never thought that Hacker News would become a forum for discussion on the evils of technology. It's good that a lot of people seem to share my point of view on corporations now. Awareness is the first step to fixing the problem.
Not to mention the many (ex) friends working for "defense" contractors.
Ex because I really can't be friends with them any longer.
Evil quotes deployed because calling it defense is a farce considering what the systems they are developing are used for.
Ex because I really can't be friends with them any longer.
Evil quotes deployed because calling it defense is a farce considering what the systems they are developing are used for.
Well, given the effectiveness that most defense contractors seem to display, they might be doing a humanitarian service. If the government is going to spend that money regardless, it's probably better that it goes into planes that can't fly and boats that dissolve in water than actually effective projects.
Sabotage is a venerable tradition, but I basically don't think it's better for anyone to be murdered by a knife that's rusty.
If persons employer determines your friendship status with them, then maybe they are better off not being associated with you.
That’s a misreading of OP’s point: it’s not the employer that they have a problem with, it’s the morality of their employment.
Except that is literally what he said. As soon as they work for defense contractors they are no longer considered friends. Presumably no matter what they do, as long as they are associated they are guilty. Be it cleaning floors, writing software, testing hardware, or what have you.
It's not quite that abrupt. I used to work for a defense contractor. I started as a rather naive young engineer. I worked hard for many years on projects that were not weapons systems or even fielded systems, mostly R&D and advanced technology. It was very cool technology. But over the years I gradually became more and more aware of the kind of systems my employer was developing. And although I did not work directly on those systems I knew that some of the technology I was developing would eventually find its way into future versions of those systems. Colleagues would always say "We aren't building bombs so it's ok." But what we were building were key subsystems used for targeting. I eventually left for the non-defense world.
So it isn't that friends suddenly became ex's overnight. It is after coming to the realization that over time they either had sold out their ethics in order to make good money working on cool technology regardless of what it is used for, or that they really bought the indoctrination that what they were doing was important patriotic work. As for the latter, I heard that stuff a lot, and I always thought it was a bad sign that the boss had to kept telling you that you are doing important work. You weren't privy to much beyond your own compartmented subsystem but over time you could eventually piece together the bigger story. As for the former, that's similar to the non-defense world where a lot of smart engineers are developing shady stuff, except that it isn't resuling in thousands of people in far away lands being killed week in and week out as a result.
So it isn't that friends suddenly became ex's overnight. It is after coming to the realization that over time they either had sold out their ethics in order to make good money working on cool technology regardless of what it is used for, or that they really bought the indoctrination that what they were doing was important patriotic work. As for the latter, I heard that stuff a lot, and I always thought it was a bad sign that the boss had to kept telling you that you are doing important work. You weren't privy to much beyond your own compartmented subsystem but over time you could eventually piece together the bigger story. As for the former, that's similar to the non-defense world where a lot of smart engineers are developing shady stuff, except that it isn't resuling in thousands of people in far away lands being killed week in and week out as a result.
[deleted]
I suppose that is true. Then they won't have to be bothered by being asked to consider what the systems they are developing are used for. They won't have to rationalize that the many thousands of children who are killed as collateral damage when the systems they designed are used to attack terrorists in far away lands are a justifiable cost of maintaining the American way of life.
You can't deny that lots of innovations came from defense research. APARNET came from the DoD. I personally wouldn't want to work in defense, but I wouldn't disrepect people working in there either.
I never understood the disdain for working in the arms sector. After all, weapons are just tools, it's the politicians who decide what to do with them. You should despise the king, not the gunsmith.
At first that seems reasonable. But when you know that you are working specifically on weapons systems that are currently being used to do great evil then it no longer seems reasonable. When the rationale becomes so convoluted and twisted as it is now, like drone strikes on families in far away places are acceptable because we must fight terror at any cost, knowing that many of the terrorists were created as part of plans to control regions and overthrow governments by the same government now killing them, it has lost any and all moral basis. If you are a gunsmith developing those systems you share that same derth of morality.
Believe it or not, there are some folk who abhor all violence, for whom there is literally no situation where a weapon of arms sector level sophistication could be used for good. In this case, there's simply no justification for the arms sector's existence.
I suspect these are fringe beliefs though, as they are naturally eliminated via evolution of the human specie.
Just like the guy pulling the lever in the gas chamber.
And in the vast majority of the cases the guy pulling the lever happened to be on that side of the gas chamber door because his nation had a strong defense sector and the government that was supposed to protect the people on the wrong side of that door had a weak defense sector. Maybe ask yourself what side of the door you want to be on before getting up on that high horse.
What an embarrassing comment for you. Do you even realize that most of those in the gas chambers were Germans? So your comment really makes no sense, in addition to being cowardly.
I choose death over murdering the innocent, and I'll take as many of my superiors issuing those orders with me as I can.
I choose death over murdering the innocent, and I'll take as many of my superiors issuing those orders with me as I can.
Sorry, but the embarrassment here is yours. The overwhelming majority of those in the gas chambers were Polish, not German. The fact that you do not know even this simple fact makes you completely unqualified to use this example in any argument you make.
Meh, I'm only mildly embarrassed about getting a fact wrong. Having no personal integrity however, and admitting that you'd pull the lever in the gas chambers, is another story.
> Do you even realize that most of those in the gas chambers were Germans?
Citation needed? Unless you were talking about the operators, not the victims... (it's not clear for me).
> I choose death over murdering the innocent, and I'll take as many of my superiors issuing those orders with me as I can.
There is a saying in Polish "we know ourselves only to the degree we've been tested before" - in other words, it's hard to tell beforehand how one would behave in an extreme situation.
Citation needed? Unless you were talking about the operators, not the victims... (it's not clear for me).
> I choose death over murdering the innocent, and I'll take as many of my superiors issuing those orders with me as I can.
There is a saying in Polish "we know ourselves only to the degree we've been tested before" - in other words, it's hard to tell beforehand how one would behave in an extreme situation.
I'd rather die than participate in mass murder.
I mean, I don't want to die, but if you are gassing people, you've not really come out ahead of the people you are gassing.
I mean, I don't want to die, but if you are gassing people, you've not really come out ahead of the people you are gassing.
> I'd rather die than participate in mass murder.
There were relatively few perpetrators of mass murders, while the murdered people counted in millions. In other words - not all Germans "pulled levers of gas chambers", while most of for example Eastern European Jews got gassed (or shot).
There were relatively few perpetrators of mass murders, while the murdered people counted in millions. In other words - not all Germans "pulled levers of gas chambers", while most of for example Eastern European Jews got gassed (or shot).
Sure. I guess my point is that worrying about which side of the gas chamber walls you end up on is a morally feeble position. The goal must be to not have gas chambers.
There's a big difference though. A country without a solid defence sector is not really sovereign - it has to buy its weapons from other countries, which can cut the supply at any time, or just refuse to sell you current-gen tech altogether.
There simply would be no USA without its defense sector - it is essential to its existence. Citizens of other countries (France, UK, Sweden etc.) understand that and you don't hear them dumping on their defense companies. It's pretty much only Americans who are so out of touch with the realities of the world that they think weapons are evil and rest of the world will just leave them be (even if they can't defend themselves).
There simply would be no USA without its defense sector - it is essential to its existence. Citizens of other countries (France, UK, Sweden etc.) understand that and you don't hear them dumping on their defense companies. It's pretty much only Americans who are so out of touch with the realities of the world that they think weapons are evil and rest of the world will just leave them be (even if they can't defend themselves).
I'm not universally against weapons manufacturing or the defense sector, but if your company is selling weapons to Saudi Arabia (or the US military, really) you should do some serious introspection about whether you are harming the world for your own profit and / or intellectual curiosity.
Well, as a citizen of the UK who’s currently living in Sweden, I’ll provide the counterpoint that I refuse to work with any of our morally corrupt ‘defence’ industries and always bring it up as a red line with any company I interview at.
Which industry is not morally corupt then? I can see maybe single companies in given industries not behaving like total assholes, but on the whole I think all industries are rotten.
It’s a reasonable point; I stay away from tobacco, and am iffy about gambling and alcohol for the same reasons. But on the whole, the stuff I build is either generally beneficial for the user or at least inoffensive.
Buy hey, that’s just my opinion :) You do what you think’s best and I’ll do the same. My point was just that it’s not just the US who has people who are ‘out of touch’ (apparently).
Buy hey, that’s just my opinion :) You do what you think’s best and I’ll do the same. My point was just that it’s not just the US who has people who are ‘out of touch’ (apparently).
best sentence (slightly reformatted):
"Twitter is not actually a company, it’s a dysfunctional
non-profit that accidentally provides a valuable service."Meta: please don't use indentation to quote, that makes the text monospace for code, which is problematic for width-limited viewers like mobile.
Use asterisks around text to make it italic, and blank lines around it to make it stand out.
This is an example of how quotes are typically formatted around here.
Use asterisks around text to make it italic, and blank lines around it to make it stand out.
This is an example of how quotes are typically formatted around here.
The Twitter quote reads on my phone as:
Twitter is not actually a cc
Non-profit that accidentally
(Yes I can scroll, but it scrolls independently of anything else)
Twitter is not actually a cc
Non-profit that accidentally
(Yes I can scroll, but it scrolls independently of anything else)
I only get
Twitter is not actual
non profit that accid
Twitter is not actual
non profit that accid
It’s one of the more amusing backhanded compliments I’ve read in a while :)
The real difficulty though, is if you start moralising too much, you may find that there aren't many jobs (let alone any that pay well), that are completely virtuous.
And this post was hidden on the second page by the administration.
https://i.imgur.com/tydgqLw.png
Note how the posts above it are older and have less votes. I also saw it disappear from pretty far up on the front page when I reloaded the page.
If you are trying to change people's mind about the tech industry, this isn't helping your case.
https://i.imgur.com/tydgqLw.png
Note how the posts above it are older and have less votes. I also saw it disappear from pretty far up on the front page when I reloaded the page.
If you are trying to change people's mind about the tech industry, this isn't helping your case.
It's not on the front page because when Americans woke up they flagged it off the front page. It's not "the administration," it's the user base.
I was a little young but I remember the anti trust case against Microsoft in the late '90s so the tech sector is not immune to it, but why are Google or Facebook out of reach?
Because Google and Facebook have the advantage of hindsight. They were able to take their time influencing and integrating with the government. Their corporate images are meticulously crafted in such a way as to not feel remotely like the cold, take-no-prisoners Microsoft of the 1990s.
It's no mistake that Eric Schmidt is best buds with all manner of high-level USG folks, with Zuckerberg laying the groundwork for political office. Worst case in the latter scenario, Zuck abandons his political ambitions and ends up even more well connected than before.
Not to mention each company's massive annual spend on lobbying, or any of the national security relationships they likely have.
It's no mistake that Eric Schmidt is best buds with all manner of high-level USG folks, with Zuckerberg laying the groundwork for political office. Worst case in the latter scenario, Zuck abandons his political ambitions and ends up even more well connected than before.
Not to mention each company's massive annual spend on lobbying, or any of the national security relationships they likely have.
[deleted]
This is bigger than the tech sector. Look at the credit companies. 3 big names. One of them just had a massive data breach. So far the CEO has kept his job, and no major business customers have left the platform (nor will they).
Better to say "credit bureaus". Your local credit union is a "credit company" but nobody would say its evil (just insecure).
I agree. The Tech sector has become too powerful, and too singular in political leaning.
Like a free press, today's communication channels need to be free and open.
The monopolies must be broken.
> It notably involves the M-word
This might be a horrendously stupid question, but what is the "M-word"? The only m-word introduced up until that point is "moment" but that's obviously not it. I was thinking maybe Microsoft, but they then go on to talk about Facebook, Amazon, and Google.
Edit: OK that was a very stupid question, I should have read to the end of the article first.
This might be a horrendously stupid question, but what is the "M-word"? The only m-word introduced up until that point is "moment" but that's obviously not it. I was thinking maybe Microsoft, but they then go on to talk about Facebook, Amazon, and Google.
Edit: OK that was a very stupid question, I should have read to the end of the article first.
> The M-Word -- It’s “Monopoly” of course.
From the article, farther down.
From the article, farther down.
This ties into the Buffet might be evil discussion last week [1]. The short version is, he prefers a company that "takes no capital, and yet grows", as well as having a moat to ward off competition (m-word). I think both are equally evil in this discussion. Basic R&D investment used to be the leader-makers of the US, but now it's scorned by shareholders.
[1] http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/Warren-Buffett-Ber...
[1] http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/Warren-Buffett-Ber...
I paused reading and came to the comments with the same question. So I’m glad you asked.
Most in the tech professions are progressive and liberal, is that so... Just because people might work in Silicon Valley doesn't mean they automatically align with that "way of thinking".
A company full of progressives and liberals is still profit-focused, and profit-centric decisions win out compared to the public good
Something I've been thinking lately and may as well ask here: is there a resource for finding tech positions exclusively with socially/morally net positive organizations?
It seems most of the tech job ads I browse through seem to be mostly companies chasing the money rather than focusing on trying to make a net positive social impact.
It seems most of the tech job ads I browse through seem to be mostly companies chasing the money rather than focusing on trying to make a net positive social impact.
> Something I've been thinking lately and may as well ask here: is there a resource for finding tech positions exclusively with socially/morally net positive organizations?
Views on morality differ, and there is no universally accepted method of assessing or aggregating utility, so this is not a thing that can be done objectively. Such a thing, were it to exist, would be highly subjective.
> It seems most of the tech job ads I browse through seem to be mostly companies chasing the money rather than focusing on trying to make a net positive social impact.
Welcome to capitalism. That said, there are jobs at public benefit corps, charitable nonprofits, and governments, which in principle are about social benefit by some standard instead of (or in addition to, in the first case) profit.
Views on morality differ, and there is no universally accepted method of assessing or aggregating utility, so this is not a thing that can be done objectively. Such a thing, were it to exist, would be highly subjective.
> It seems most of the tech job ads I browse through seem to be mostly companies chasing the money rather than focusing on trying to make a net positive social impact.
Welcome to capitalism. That said, there are jobs at public benefit corps, charitable nonprofits, and governments, which in principle are about social benefit by some standard instead of (or in addition to, in the first case) profit.
Hi, I don't know about job listings, but you might be interested in Benefit Corporations[0] or B Corporations[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation#Difference...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_Corporation_(certification)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation#Difference...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_Corporation_(certification)
Who gets to decide whats "socially/morally net positive"? Every company thinks they're "socially/morally net positive", which at best happens by accident. If you want to help people, join a non-profit, don't buy into some company's PR. Companies chase money, thats the point of a company.
I would suggest Angel List to at the very least narrow your search, and then manually inspect the companies that come close to what you are looking for :)
You will find that they are few and far between ahah
You will find that they are few and far between ahah
[deleted]
Bray's piece is largely notable for the fact that he's calling attention to this trend -- it's something which you should be paying attention to, if you're in tech, or if you're one of its critics. (And quite possibly both.) But there isn't any analysis as such.
I'd like to suggest a possible thread tying numerous elements of this together:
1. Technology companies tend to become monopolies.
2. Tech companies tend to become power centers.
3. Monopolies are associated with economic rents -- returns above the ordinary economic costs of production. (Contrast commodities or wages, or even more so, public goods.)
I've been putting thought into just what technology is, or more specifically, what mechanisms technology operates through. Among those are network and control systems (I'm still trying to decide if that's one element or two). Networks are any set of differentiated nodes connected by some relationship and flows (energy, material, information, forces, some mix of the above).
Networks may be physical (transport, communications), logical (webs of knowledge, marketing networks), or a mix of the two. Various network and dendritic structures include cities, roads, rivers, shipping routes, and the like.
Because of scaling effects, absent other considerations (and these do exist), a larger network typically has the advantage over a smaller one, and very often tremendously much so. In particular, by both providing low price options and controlling access to critical resources (or paths or nodes), network structures can exert considerable power.
That is: networks (physical or logical) are monopolies, and provide economic rents, through the mechanism of power and manipulation.
And this seems to be fundamental and intrinsic.
(I'm still developing the model. I'm interested in constructive challenges. More discussion: https://redd.it/71i231)
I'd like to suggest a possible thread tying numerous elements of this together:
1. Technology companies tend to become monopolies.
2. Tech companies tend to become power centers.
3. Monopolies are associated with economic rents -- returns above the ordinary economic costs of production. (Contrast commodities or wages, or even more so, public goods.)
I've been putting thought into just what technology is, or more specifically, what mechanisms technology operates through. Among those are network and control systems (I'm still trying to decide if that's one element or two). Networks are any set of differentiated nodes connected by some relationship and flows (energy, material, information, forces, some mix of the above).
Networks may be physical (transport, communications), logical (webs of knowledge, marketing networks), or a mix of the two. Various network and dendritic structures include cities, roads, rivers, shipping routes, and the like.
Because of scaling effects, absent other considerations (and these do exist), a larger network typically has the advantage over a smaller one, and very often tremendously much so. In particular, by both providing low price options and controlling access to critical resources (or paths or nodes), network structures can exert considerable power.
That is: networks (physical or logical) are monopolies, and provide economic rents, through the mechanism of power and manipulation.
And this seems to be fundamental and intrinsic.
(I'm still developing the model. I'm interested in constructive challenges. More discussion: https://redd.it/71i231)
"...But these days, it seems like every other day I read a chilling anti-tech rant, usually written by someone smart, articulate, and (like me) leftist..."
There's an extremely interesting thing going on. Observing the mess tech has made does not seem to be related to political affiliation. I know people on the left, right, and center that are all beginning to realize that we're creating a dystopian future, not a happy one.
As a libertarian, I'm concerned that we've created "Knowledge Overlords" with Facebook/Google/Apple/Amazon/etc the likes of which mankind has never seen. They know all, they see all, they tell us what's true or not. And no matter how much they have, they only want more.
Even more disturbing, they're coopting efforts to fix other areas. Don't like Nazis? I don't. Never cared for criminal gangs or terrorists. Some of these folks should be left alone. Some of these folks need action by society. But our overlords have decided that these people should cease to exist. So they're using their huge infrastructure to deploy AI to intercept these people's communications to the rest of us and mute them.
Now whether you like this or not -- and I don't -- let's honestly look at what's happening. These giants are creating a walled garden internet that no new provider could hope to emulate. They've got censors, filters, hoards of people watching cat pictures being posted, on the lookout for a stray boob or white supremacist. Their talking point? They're helping us. They're taking a stand for what's right, helping the internet be a better and safer place. Maybe so. But they're also preventing any new Googles, or any new Facebooks. All they need to do is keep making their filters better and better to the point where the public demands them and they're impossible to reproduce by startups. Competition? Problem solved.
What this tells me is that this nirvana we're in, where people of all political persuasions agree there are serious problems, is not going to last. Instead these companies will position themselves with certain political causes and then anybody who disagrees will be accused of being a political wanker. In my example above, in the states at least, if I tried to defend the ability of loser Nazis to post online, people would automatically lump me in with some group, perhaps the alt-right. The tech companies are taking their quest for domination and turning it into just another political issue -- one that might go for decades unresolved as the usual suspects argue about it.
Right now most all reasonable observers agree there is a problem. We all used to agree on most all of the aspects of the problem. That's decreased to 70-80% agreement as these companies politicize things. Look to see it decrease even further as they continue to "help" us with various social issues they find troubling.
General agreement is being turned into just-another-political issue. In kindness, I think this is because for every thousand really smart SV entrepreneurs, there is but a tiny number of them who actually think about and understand the societal implications of what they are doing. Perhaps these big companies are cynically manipulating the discussion to prevent any action. Perhaps they just don't know. In either case, the effects are the same. Good intentions don't count for much.
There is much darkness here.
There's an extremely interesting thing going on. Observing the mess tech has made does not seem to be related to political affiliation. I know people on the left, right, and center that are all beginning to realize that we're creating a dystopian future, not a happy one.
As a libertarian, I'm concerned that we've created "Knowledge Overlords" with Facebook/Google/Apple/Amazon/etc the likes of which mankind has never seen. They know all, they see all, they tell us what's true or not. And no matter how much they have, they only want more.
Even more disturbing, they're coopting efforts to fix other areas. Don't like Nazis? I don't. Never cared for criminal gangs or terrorists. Some of these folks should be left alone. Some of these folks need action by society. But our overlords have decided that these people should cease to exist. So they're using their huge infrastructure to deploy AI to intercept these people's communications to the rest of us and mute them.
Now whether you like this or not -- and I don't -- let's honestly look at what's happening. These giants are creating a walled garden internet that no new provider could hope to emulate. They've got censors, filters, hoards of people watching cat pictures being posted, on the lookout for a stray boob or white supremacist. Their talking point? They're helping us. They're taking a stand for what's right, helping the internet be a better and safer place. Maybe so. But they're also preventing any new Googles, or any new Facebooks. All they need to do is keep making their filters better and better to the point where the public demands them and they're impossible to reproduce by startups. Competition? Problem solved.
What this tells me is that this nirvana we're in, where people of all political persuasions agree there are serious problems, is not going to last. Instead these companies will position themselves with certain political causes and then anybody who disagrees will be accused of being a political wanker. In my example above, in the states at least, if I tried to defend the ability of loser Nazis to post online, people would automatically lump me in with some group, perhaps the alt-right. The tech companies are taking their quest for domination and turning it into just another political issue -- one that might go for decades unresolved as the usual suspects argue about it.
Right now most all reasonable observers agree there is a problem. We all used to agree on most all of the aspects of the problem. That's decreased to 70-80% agreement as these companies politicize things. Look to see it decrease even further as they continue to "help" us with various social issues they find troubling.
General agreement is being turned into just-another-political issue. In kindness, I think this is because for every thousand really smart SV entrepreneurs, there is but a tiny number of them who actually think about and understand the societal implications of what they are doing. Perhaps these big companies are cynically manipulating the discussion to prevent any action. Perhaps they just don't know. In either case, the effects are the same. Good intentions don't count for much.
There is much darkness here.
I'm curious about your thoughts on reconciling libertarian ideals with the desire to limit the power of corporations.
Libertarianism gives me a philosophical foundation to reason about political issues that is outside the usual partisan structure. It's also an ideal, not a club of people wanting to gain, hold, and exert power. So you never reach a perfect world. If you want to be a libertarian, you'd better be prepared to compromise. With everybody.
Both of these attributes differ us from most political folks.
I will continue to use Nazis as an example of "a group we all hate". They've been around in the states forever and we have traditionally tolerated them. You can substitute various other groups or causes.
There is effectively no difference between having the government ban Nazis from demonstrating in the public square and Google preventing them from showing up in seach results. Sure, if there were a dozen search engines, each with 5-10% of the search market, you could make a great case that search!=visibility/speech. That argument cannot be made today, at least in the U.S. Today not only can internet giants shut you down, they can make you think you're speaking to the world when you're only speaking to yourself (hell-banning). That's all kinds of fucked up.
What's happening is that governments are effectively delegating powers of surveillance and censorship to large corporations, which gain and hold their power through government collusion. When Facebook sucks up to China to gain a foothold, claiming that any kind of openness beats nothing at all, it's not Facebook that is using China. It's China that is using Facebook. Sure, may look different to Zuck and the other cats in SV, but I can assure you that from the government side of things, they are well aware of exactly what's going on.
I think that internet companies in general made a devil's bargain back in the 90s: sure, the net is free, but in return for us tracking and recording everything you do, we'll give you even more free stuff! Who doesn't like free stuff? And it's not like when you're using the internet that you can observe how you're being tracked. As far as most people believed (and still want to believe, really), it's free stuff and there's absolutely no cost at all.
It's been a decade or two. Now the devil must have his due. Nobody cared that Google was recording your searches. But now that everybody is recording everything, it's not such a pretty world we've created.
I do not believe governments should limit corporations "just because". I do not believe we should limit the power of governments "just because". We want to limit complexity and maximize marketplace competition, whether it's in the government sector or corporate sector. That's good for everybody. In the states, the federated system we used to have allowed folks to pack up and move to another state if they didn't like their government.
So I think your question is assuming that there are two different things that I would feel differently about, government and big corporations. But these two things do not exist independently of one another. What's happening is that the role of Big Government and Big Business are becoming conflated. We are centralizing everything and creating a winner-take-all marketplace, whether it's the political parties running for office or the internet giants competing for mind-space. There are no options. There are no choices. Instead of various experiments leading to better stuff for everybody (in both government and the private sector) it's just becoming a big free-for-all for domination.
In fact, in most cases domination has already been decided. You don't think that voting Republican or Democrat is really going to change much, do you? Sure, maybe around the edges. Perhaps once every decade or two you might get a huge social program. But no matter who wins, it's the same people. The same policies. No matter whether you use Google Search or DDG, your ISP is still tracking everything. We pretend there is much more diversity and freedom of choice than there actually is.
When corporations and governments use one another to take away our choices and create society that nobody in their right mind would want to live in, something must be done. Busting up the big companies is probably the easiest, but it's honestly just half of the problem. If we could all agree on just that half, I'm a happy guy. But I doubt the players will allow us to do so.
Both of these attributes differ us from most political folks.
I will continue to use Nazis as an example of "a group we all hate". They've been around in the states forever and we have traditionally tolerated them. You can substitute various other groups or causes.
There is effectively no difference between having the government ban Nazis from demonstrating in the public square and Google preventing them from showing up in seach results. Sure, if there were a dozen search engines, each with 5-10% of the search market, you could make a great case that search!=visibility/speech. That argument cannot be made today, at least in the U.S. Today not only can internet giants shut you down, they can make you think you're speaking to the world when you're only speaking to yourself (hell-banning). That's all kinds of fucked up.
What's happening is that governments are effectively delegating powers of surveillance and censorship to large corporations, which gain and hold their power through government collusion. When Facebook sucks up to China to gain a foothold, claiming that any kind of openness beats nothing at all, it's not Facebook that is using China. It's China that is using Facebook. Sure, may look different to Zuck and the other cats in SV, but I can assure you that from the government side of things, they are well aware of exactly what's going on.
I think that internet companies in general made a devil's bargain back in the 90s: sure, the net is free, but in return for us tracking and recording everything you do, we'll give you even more free stuff! Who doesn't like free stuff? And it's not like when you're using the internet that you can observe how you're being tracked. As far as most people believed (and still want to believe, really), it's free stuff and there's absolutely no cost at all.
It's been a decade or two. Now the devil must have his due. Nobody cared that Google was recording your searches. But now that everybody is recording everything, it's not such a pretty world we've created.
I do not believe governments should limit corporations "just because". I do not believe we should limit the power of governments "just because". We want to limit complexity and maximize marketplace competition, whether it's in the government sector or corporate sector. That's good for everybody. In the states, the federated system we used to have allowed folks to pack up and move to another state if they didn't like their government.
So I think your question is assuming that there are two different things that I would feel differently about, government and big corporations. But these two things do not exist independently of one another. What's happening is that the role of Big Government and Big Business are becoming conflated. We are centralizing everything and creating a winner-take-all marketplace, whether it's the political parties running for office or the internet giants competing for mind-space. There are no options. There are no choices. Instead of various experiments leading to better stuff for everybody (in both government and the private sector) it's just becoming a big free-for-all for domination.
In fact, in most cases domination has already been decided. You don't think that voting Republican or Democrat is really going to change much, do you? Sure, maybe around the edges. Perhaps once every decade or two you might get a huge social program. But no matter who wins, it's the same people. The same policies. No matter whether you use Google Search or DDG, your ISP is still tracking everything. We pretend there is much more diversity and freedom of choice than there actually is.
When corporations and governments use one another to take away our choices and create society that nobody in their right mind would want to live in, something must be done. Busting up the big companies is probably the easiest, but it's honestly just half of the problem. If we could all agree on just that half, I'm a happy guy. But I doubt the players will allow us to do so.
That's exactly my assumption, and it's one of my standing questions for people I encounter who align themselves with libertarianism, and I'm always genuinely curious.
It's because I find it a very interesting and difficult question how to approach the danger of individual liberty leading, through a sequence of steps none of which is by itself illiberal, leads to the establishment of large and powerful corporations that de facto destroy liberty just as much as any state.
I agree that big business and big government are becoming conflated, although I guess they have been since the beginning of global capitalism and the founding of the limited liability East India Company in 1600...
The distinction between state power and private power seems essential to libertarian ideology, so it's interesting to hear your take.
It's because I find it a very interesting and difficult question how to approach the danger of individual liberty leading, through a sequence of steps none of which is by itself illiberal, leads to the establishment of large and powerful corporations that de facto destroy liberty just as much as any state.
I agree that big business and big government are becoming conflated, although I guess they have been since the beginning of global capitalism and the founding of the limited liability East India Company in 1600...
The distinction between state power and private power seems essential to libertarian ideology, so it's interesting to hear your take.
"The distinction between state power and private power seems essential to libertarian ideology..."
Yes, in the ideal world (hence all of the preferencing I went through). But that's not the case with the big internet players. It's a spectrum. I'd feel completely differently about the local lemonade stand.
Systems gain cruft over time. I'd make the same argument about governments. A lot of them start off great, but through a series of logical and altruistic measures, never wanting to harm folks or create a dystopia -- end up doing so. I think the saddest thing about both the monopoly and big government discussions is that in many cases, there are no bad guys. There's just organizational drift over time.
Doesn't make it any better -- and in fact understanding can be really tough for a lot of folks. But if we really want to fix things we need to be honest with ourselves about both where we are and how we got here. Sloganeering and partisanship are not conducive to fixing things.
ADD: Good point about the EIC. When libertarians talk about the free market, whether they realize/admit it or not, it's small-scale markets, people trading apples 2-for-a-dollar. Humans are natural traders. The minute a person gets really good at trading, he automatically wants to start creating structures to protect both the traders and his own interests. He conflates the two. The system to "protect" people? That's government. It's impossible to have a government without people trading something for something inside of it, and based on the items traded and the number of players, the government corrupts more or less quickly.
I like libertarianism because it's an ideal. We'll never create a world market of people selling apples 2-for-a-dollar, and that's okay. I still have the tools to reason about GE or Facebook. There is a distinction between private and state power, and it's important. But they become mixed together at extremely small scales -- much more so at larger ones. You don't get to be a Toyota without a government somewhere covering your back. With the internet companies, we are watching in real time how starting off on your own with a great product people love quickly leads to either becoming deeply entangled in governments or losing your market share.
Yes, in the ideal world (hence all of the preferencing I went through). But that's not the case with the big internet players. It's a spectrum. I'd feel completely differently about the local lemonade stand.
Systems gain cruft over time. I'd make the same argument about governments. A lot of them start off great, but through a series of logical and altruistic measures, never wanting to harm folks or create a dystopia -- end up doing so. I think the saddest thing about both the monopoly and big government discussions is that in many cases, there are no bad guys. There's just organizational drift over time.
Doesn't make it any better -- and in fact understanding can be really tough for a lot of folks. But if we really want to fix things we need to be honest with ourselves about both where we are and how we got here. Sloganeering and partisanship are not conducive to fixing things.
ADD: Good point about the EIC. When libertarians talk about the free market, whether they realize/admit it or not, it's small-scale markets, people trading apples 2-for-a-dollar. Humans are natural traders. The minute a person gets really good at trading, he automatically wants to start creating structures to protect both the traders and his own interests. He conflates the two. The system to "protect" people? That's government. It's impossible to have a government without people trading something for something inside of it, and based on the items traded and the number of players, the government corrupts more or less quickly.
I like libertarianism because it's an ideal. We'll never create a world market of people selling apples 2-for-a-dollar, and that's okay. I still have the tools to reason about GE or Facebook. There is a distinction between private and state power, and it's important. But they become mixed together at extremely small scales -- much more so at larger ones. You don't get to be a Toyota without a government somewhere covering your back. With the internet companies, we are watching in real time how starting off on your own with a great product people love quickly leads to either becoming deeply entangled in governments or losing your market share.
[deleted]
Capitalism is evil, so this is not surprising.
The article might not be loading.
Please fix the title.
One problem is that these accusations tend to come from sectors which are far more "evil" (e.g. the media, academia), and whichever cure they have in mind is likely to make things worse.
Of all these players, Apple is positioned best for the future, and I think, it is a testament to Tim Cook's vision. Under Cook, Apple has consistently positioned itself as a guardian of people's privacy. Big changes are coming. The way things are developing, it will be the state vs the big tech, because the Big Tech thinks it can use the data of citizens and it belong to the Big Tech. The state thinks otherwise.
It is Google, FB, Yelp and others, who have taken the information that we supplied, they monopolized it to deliver what? The targeted ads. That's how creative they are...
Yesterday, a friend of mine, was congratulated for Rosh Hashana by FB:NASDAQ on her FB stream. How does it even know it?! What business does it even have to know her Jewishness?
The whole Zuck thing is creepy.
It is Google, FB, Yelp and others, who have taken the information that we supplied, they monopolized it to deliver what? The targeted ads. That's how creative they are...
Yesterday, a friend of mine, was congratulated for Rosh Hashana by FB:NASDAQ on her FB stream. How does it even know it?! What business does it even have to know her Jewishness?
The whole Zuck thing is creepy.
You are onto something. I think "the way things are developing", big tech and gov might fall into each others arms - what a beautiful couple. Imagine what a business _that_ would be! Also, I'm surprised this scenario is rarely if ever discussed, I mean that corporate government type of thing in the Continuum tv series.
"I left out Twitter because it’s not actually a company, it’s a dysfunctional non-profit that accidentally provides a valuable service." Ouch.