@ekaitz_zarraga @aral @zensaiyuki I like the sentiment, but of course there's always complications. I work for a company that has some very principled privacy advocates working for it, that is, due to recent changes to legislation, required to implement processes that are really hostile to customer privacy.
I do not want to build this. My colleagues don't. But the choice for us is to build it in a minimally-compliant way or to let a competitor build it in a much more harmful way.
@kameleonidas @ekaitz_zarraga @aral exactly, at the end of the day if market pressures or the law want something to be built, it will be built by someone and shaming devs will do jack squat about that. if, as an individual you conscientiously object to say, building software that ICE uses, refusing to do work for them is admirable. but it won’t stop ICE from doing what they do.
If *all* developers say they won't do that, that will never be done or they would have less resources to do it, or problems to hire people at least. Doing it just because others will do it if you don't *is* what makes you feel better in the short term while you are harming people.
Fighting against the reasons is not incompatible with telling developers to choose who they work for.
It's a nonsense.
First because your are not considering the fact that people has the individual responsibility to be good.
Second because hammers build much more things in human history than people they killed.
Even using your argument here: If bad is less than good, any technology you make than amplifies both will make good even more than bad.
bad < good
n · bad << n · good
if defeating evil were as simple as deciding not to build a tool, then we should just refuse to make tools.
the real world is more complicated. take mutually assured destruction: should physicists have refused to help build nuclear weapons for the US? would the world be better off with russia as the world’s only nuclear superpower?
@zensaiyuki @kameleonidas @aral But with this kind of thinking you are just diluting the message. The message is: there are many places you can work, many good products you can build, based on the principles of privacy and human rights. Don't work on those who don't respect the principles.
That's all. We can go around this thing as far as you want, but that won't help.
We are just reminding devs to reconsider their job and that's something everyone should do.
1. i broadly agree that if you can refuse to work on something obviously unethical, you should. and this has bigger effects than just making it harder for the people who want to do unethical things.
2. this argument has been twisted to lay the blame for evil things entirely on the shoulders of developers, and i seriously object to that.
@zensaiyuki @kameleonidas @aral I don't think any of us believes the second.
At least, I consider companies responsible and also consider they made a good publicity to make people want to work for them.
That's why I shared my experience and I give talks about the reality of our jobs, I want to revert that publicity. And it's a really hard job, and some people get it personally.
We are responsible of our part. Not the biggest part, but we are still responsible.
(1) Things are not so black and white. Reality does not consist of a series of booleans and enums. Tradeoffs exist and context matters.
(2) Some software has unethical aspects to it, but that does not necessarily make it unethical as a whole.
(3) A company asking developers to build unethical software (components) is not necessarily unethical.
(4) Unethical components may be required by law.
1) That speaking in absolutes is nice for social media posturing but rather limited in the search for practical solutions.
2 & 3) Are you really going to start a "Yes! No!" battle?
4) I know, I know, it rarely ever happens in practice that laws are unethical, it's just a corner case. /s
Private instance, sign ups closed.