Why developers should start choosing conscience over profit(venturebeat.com)
venturebeat.com
Why developers should start choosing conscience over profit
http://venturebeat.com/2013/02/18/developers-choosing-conscience-over-profit/
26 comments
Actually there are many people in the world who would have moral issues with working to make the world a worse place, but still need to keep the paychecks coming in.
I know a few developers who would never work for the defense industry, because no matter how justified some wars may be they don't want to directly contribute to weapon code. I'm not sure if I'm with them as it's never come up, but it might be.
I know a fair few people (myself definitely included) who would never work for companies making intrusive ads or advertising/tracking software, because it actively makes the world a worse place for everyone.
These aren't exactly ditching it all to make software that actively makes the world a better place, but if we all refused to make the world a worse place, wouldn't that be good as well?
And if you're reading HN, you have career and employment choices, you really do.
I know a few developers who would never work for the defense industry, because no matter how justified some wars may be they don't want to directly contribute to weapon code. I'm not sure if I'm with them as it's never come up, but it might be.
I know a fair few people (myself definitely included) who would never work for companies making intrusive ads or advertising/tracking software, because it actively makes the world a worse place for everyone.
These aren't exactly ditching it all to make software that actively makes the world a better place, but if we all refused to make the world a worse place, wouldn't that be good as well?
And if you're reading HN, you have career and employment choices, you really do.
I asked some engineer friends of mine who work for a govt contractor building helicopter control systems how they felt about their work being used to kill innocent people in foreign countries.
To answer the question, they rubbed their fingers together making the "money gesture"...
To answer the question, they rubbed their fingers together making the "money gesture"...
Can't say much to that other than 'That's a shame'.
I am a realist, I recognise that the 'if' in 'if we all decided not to make the world a worse place' is a very, very big if indeed. Some people just don't care, and it's not like we can all agree on what morality is anyway. To some people it's likely to be seen as extremely moral to contribute to your country's defense capabilities.
So... yeah. But if we could all stop working for the tracking/ad industry I'd be stoked :)
I am a realist, I recognise that the 'if' in 'if we all decided not to make the world a worse place' is a very, very big if indeed. Some people just don't care, and it's not like we can all agree on what morality is anyway. To some people it's likely to be seen as extremely moral to contribute to your country's defense capabilities.
So... yeah. But if we could all stop working for the tracking/ad industry I'd be stoked :)
totally agree with you about actively choosing things that dont make the world a worse place. great point.
Hey, thanks for the comment. Your point about financial security and "high-profile" companies are exactly the narrative I'm taking aim at. Fame and fortune are not truly sufficient motivators for innovation. Developers can do more and deserve better than to barter their skills for either of those two things. Also, show me a modestly talented developer in today's tech economy who is "strapped for cash" and I will show you someone who choses to not help themselves.
Point-blank: I see the entire social media ecosystem (not the individual social networks but the businesses that thrive because of it or cater to it), including Singly, as part of the problem: It stretches the definition of "making" and basks in the frivolity of reality shows etc. And I think you are talking out of both sides of your mouth by promulgating this conscience while taking millions of dollars of VC money and focusing on the exact problem you are lamenting -- I bet you dollars to donuts that your investors ultimately want you to focus on profit.
Solving problems in the realm of ad optimization, for example, are as much making as any of the projects you see on github or any of the arduino projects you see mentioned here and elsewhere. In fact, in many ways those ad problems are harder, usually involving more advanced math or clever data analysis techniques to deal with large amounts of data.
'Also, show me a modestly talented developer in today's tech economy who is "strapped for cash" and I will show you someone who choses to not help themselves.'
The joke here is that the developer who is choosing conscience over profit is the type of developer who would be working at a nonprofit or other context that wouldn't be paying nearly as well as a vc-backed startup.
Solving problems in the realm of ad optimization, for example, are as much making as any of the projects you see on github or any of the arduino projects you see mentioned here and elsewhere. In fact, in many ways those ad problems are harder, usually involving more advanced math or clever data analysis techniques to deal with large amounts of data.
'Also, show me a modestly talented developer in today's tech economy who is "strapped for cash" and I will show you someone who choses to not help themselves.'
The joke here is that the developer who is choosing conscience over profit is the type of developer who would be working at a nonprofit or other context that wouldn't be paying nearly as well as a vc-backed startup.
Yeah...these points again illustrate the very lines of thinking being called into question with the article. 1) Solving "problems" and fulfilling a maker's purpose are not even close to the same thing. 2) nobody working at any of the initiatives listed in the article is "strapped for cash" when you compare their wages to the rest of the world -- they are making a good living doing something they believe in. 3) to be VC backed and to generate a profit doesn't inherently suggest something might not also have a deeper purpose.
I just wish you would follow your own advice ...
Solving problems in the realm of ad optimization, for example, are as much making as any of the projects you see on github or any of the arduino projects you see mentioned here and elsewhere. In fact, in many ways those ad problems are harder, usually involving more advanced math or clever data analysis techniques to deal with large amounts of data.
And that is exactly Jeff Hammerbacher's point. It's irrelevant whether or not he's a hypocrite. It sucks. And by the way, his lament isn't simply about those work on ad optimization (something I know about, regrettably), but about all products that rely on ad revenue, because as they say, with those business models users are not the customer but the product.
Most ads are fundamentally manipulative if not dishonest.
The "but ads support a free web" is utter bullshit. There is no free lunch. Advertising simply shifts the cost of the "fee lunch" to the price of the advertised products. In other words we still end up paying. Even worse, it might shift costs regressively, toward lower incomes and the less educated.
BUT IT'S WORSE: We end up paying a lot more.
Not only are you still paying for the costs of the "free website", you are paying for all that advertising overhead, the costs of advertising technology and infrastructure (huge, btw), the agency and creative costs (Don Draper and his colleagues have to pay for the hookers and scotch somehow, not to mention what’s-his-name who basically just lounges in his office barefoot thinking Japanese), and big marketing departments that often outnumber the people who actually write or make things.
You are also paying the opportunity cost of inferior product, because that’s what happens when websites have to design to please advertisers over pleasing us, the users. Dalton Caldwell makes this point comparing Sourceforge to Github: http://daltoncaldwell.com/an-audacious-proposal.
Our identities and privacy are bought and sold to the highest bidders. So we foot the bill for those bids AND we pay the cost of lost privacy. A double whammy! It's personalization? Bullshit. Personalization means optimizing something for me, not optimizing for the advertiser. Again, who's the real customer?
IT GETS EVEN WORSE.
Think of the social costs of advertising. The web is infested with misinformation and manipulation. Not just ads, but how relying on a revenue stream entirely dependent on how many ads are seen severely affects the moral choices of those who decide what gets produced and how its presented, the same if not worse than it affects cable “news”. What are the costs of a misinformed and variously manipulated citizenry, of distortions to the free-market?
Knowledge and discourse are the lifeblood of both democracy, free markets, progress. The web, from the little scammy websites to the big brand ones that so many blindly trust, has a huge influence on who we vote for, what we buy, and most importantly, what we believe.
Getting back to the OP's point, if we put conscience ahead of profit, we'd not build ad-supported products. Those are deals with the devil, nothing less.
And that is exactly Jeff Hammerbacher's point. It's irrelevant whether or not he's a hypocrite. It sucks. And by the way, his lament isn't simply about those work on ad optimization (something I know about, regrettably), but about all products that rely on ad revenue, because as they say, with those business models users are not the customer but the product.
Most ads are fundamentally manipulative if not dishonest.
The "but ads support a free web" is utter bullshit. There is no free lunch. Advertising simply shifts the cost of the "fee lunch" to the price of the advertised products. In other words we still end up paying. Even worse, it might shift costs regressively, toward lower incomes and the less educated.
BUT IT'S WORSE: We end up paying a lot more.
Not only are you still paying for the costs of the "free website", you are paying for all that advertising overhead, the costs of advertising technology and infrastructure (huge, btw), the agency and creative costs (Don Draper and his colleagues have to pay for the hookers and scotch somehow, not to mention what’s-his-name who basically just lounges in his office barefoot thinking Japanese), and big marketing departments that often outnumber the people who actually write or make things.
You are also paying the opportunity cost of inferior product, because that’s what happens when websites have to design to please advertisers over pleasing us, the users. Dalton Caldwell makes this point comparing Sourceforge to Github: http://daltoncaldwell.com/an-audacious-proposal.
Our identities and privacy are bought and sold to the highest bidders. So we foot the bill for those bids AND we pay the cost of lost privacy. A double whammy! It's personalization? Bullshit. Personalization means optimizing something for me, not optimizing for the advertiser. Again, who's the real customer?
IT GETS EVEN WORSE.
Think of the social costs of advertising. The web is infested with misinformation and manipulation. Not just ads, but how relying on a revenue stream entirely dependent on how many ads are seen severely affects the moral choices of those who decide what gets produced and how its presented, the same if not worse than it affects cable “news”. What are the costs of a misinformed and variously manipulated citizenry, of distortions to the free-market?
Knowledge and discourse are the lifeblood of both democracy, free markets, progress. The web, from the little scammy websites to the big brand ones that so many blindly trust, has a huge influence on who we vote for, what we buy, and most importantly, what we believe.
Getting back to the OP's point, if we put conscience ahead of profit, we'd not build ad-supported products. Those are deals with the devil, nothing less.
For the record, I 100% agree with you, and still I am left with this question: How do I, as a producer of a product worth money, find customers for my product without contributing to the advertising system I loathe for all the reasons you mention?
I have a product and there are people out there who want it. How do I connect the two in an ethical and moral way that doesn't make the world worse?
I have a product and there are people out there who want it. How do I connect the two in an ethical and moral way that doesn't make the world worse?
I mentioned a solution in the discussion over PG and install monetizer. Advertising as a whole isn't bad but advertise where it makes sense (like a relevant trade conference or through word of mouth or in places that people would actually look).
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5094295
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5094295
I agree with you in principle, but in practice its not always this simple. With the deluge of products of varying quality, its hard to be found even when your product is best. Word of mouth works over the long run, but a fledgling business might not survive long enough. On the other hand, it's easier and easier to bootstrap these days, paying only for the scale you actually need, thereby supporting growth curves with low early slopes that accelerate later.
Back in the day when we lived in small enough communities, word of mouth was entirely sufficient. In fact advertising would have backfired if it contradicted community knowledge and unnecessary if it agreed.
But word of mouth doesn't scale without some help. That's where good collaborative filtering comes in. For example Yelp surfaces mom-and-pop hole-in-the-wall gems and buries crap. Yelp's two major problem is that it is ad supported and therefor does not always putting user's interests first, and their collaborative filtering does not understand that people have different tastes.
If all those smart brains that are currently applied to ad revenue and ad conversion optimization were applied to collaborative filtering, I'm convinced we'd find an honest way to connect consumers to producers. Ads would then become as irrelevant as they would in a small village.
Back in the day when we lived in small enough communities, word of mouth was entirely sufficient. In fact advertising would have backfired if it contradicted community knowledge and unnecessary if it agreed.
But word of mouth doesn't scale without some help. That's where good collaborative filtering comes in. For example Yelp surfaces mom-and-pop hole-in-the-wall gems and buries crap. Yelp's two major problem is that it is ad supported and therefor does not always putting user's interests first, and their collaborative filtering does not understand that people have different tastes.
If all those smart brains that are currently applied to ad revenue and ad conversion optimization were applied to collaborative filtering, I'm convinced we'd find an honest way to connect consumers to producers. Ads would then become as irrelevant as they would in a small village.
Are you asking whether you should advertise your product, whether it should be ad supported, or both?
I just wish the OP would actually follow his own advice ...
Our investment is to make personal "computing" truly personal. How we merge our personal data with the apps and communities we share into is complex but has the potential to make healthcare more democratic and cost-constructive; teams more efficient, relationships more connected, information discovery more intuitive, etc. All of this for people while also lowering the economic and time barrier for increasingly smaller teams of developers who want to build these apps to get their product to their customers. We feel very purposed in our work and offer a product with an explicit model. Not sure I follow your trolling. I mean logic.
I always think of Tim O'Reilly as an inspiring example of a Maker. Will I ever be anywhere close to being up there with him? No. Will I consider myself a failure if I'll never be a true Maker? No. But it doesn't hurt to go through life with the aspiration to be a little bit like Tim O'Reilly. Perhaps that will make me spot an opportunity that I would otherwise have overlooked. This quote by the man himself never ceases to inspire me: “Pursue something so important that even if you fail, the world is better off with you having tried.”
I'll get downvoted to oblivion for saying this, but conscience is why I choose closed source over open source.
If I open my source code, anyone in the world can use it to do whatever they want, evil or otherwise. With closed source, I can choose who my customers are -- at least I have more control over it. Of course if people are skilled, bad, and determined enough, nothing will keep them out.
I can and do, also choose to let people use my software for free when I want to. With Open Source, I don't have that power.
If I open my source code, anyone in the world can use it to do whatever they want, evil or otherwise. With closed source, I can choose who my customers are -- at least I have more control over it. Of course if people are skilled, bad, and determined enough, nothing will keep them out.
I can and do, also choose to let people use my software for free when I want to. With Open Source, I don't have that power.
This is basically why I'm partial to open source. Free software with control over who has access to the source is a much better solution.
If anyone but you has the source, you no longer control access to it. You and they do and if they decide to upload it to BitTorrent, what are you going to do?
That would be a good test to see if you made the right decision with giving a specific person access.
That's a very cynical view.
I, for example, support the ACLU's defending the KKK's right to free speech. In the long run... or as MLK might say, the arch of free speech is long but it bends toward good. The same I believe for open source.
I, for example, support the ACLU's defending the KKK's right to free speech. In the long run... or as MLK might say, the arch of free speech is long but it bends toward good. The same I believe for open source.
The author should hire a hacker for 100k/yr and let them work on whatever "is fulfilling" to them then, as it must be nice to look down on "optimizing your paycheck" when student loans exist. Fwiw making cool stuff and money are not mutually exclusive.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha ..... ok
I'd like to see concrete examples with high-profile companies of where conscience was favored over profit.