Is it enough that a few people like this simply turn their backs and walk away to different work? I would think their vacancies would be quickly and easily filled.

Is there really a shortage of people willing and able to do this kind of work for these companies and government agencies? I'm asking because I truly don't know.

And if not, could we think of some other ways people in these positions could exert some influence for change, even if it's only after they leave those jobs?

Yes it has an effect. In a tight labour market, any restriction on the number of people who are willing to do your work will increase your costs.

Eventually, you might start to ask "why" and change some things to bring the costs back in line.

For example, I know lots of people (including me), who refused interviews with Uber post harassment revelations.

I understand that in principle it could have an effect, and I understand how.

I'm questioning whether that market for developers really is tight enough to matter, whether employers and top policy makers would even notice that some number of people withhold their skills in protest.

I'm wondering if perhaps there are other more powerful ways for these developers to exert their influence, whether in these positions or outside of them.

That would be an interesting research paper, particularly if it was able to quantify the effect of various blows to a companies reputation.

"The effect of corporate reputation on staffing costs"?

A quick googling implies "yes"?

https://www.igniyte.co.uk/blog/how-a-bad-corporate-reputatio....

I was under the impression that lack of talent does matter- if top talent doesn't want to work for you, you can't replace top talent with less-top talent and expect to maintain your competitive edge. Especially if said top talent is now working for a competitor.

There's a saying in showbiz that applies equally well to job vacancies: "there's an a*s for every seat"

Would you please stop posting generic ideological comments to HN? It looks like you've been doing it repeatedly. It's against the site guidelines because it leads to repetitive threads which are tedious at best and nasty at worst. This site is supposed to be for curious conversation and those things are not compatible.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Would you please stop posting generic ideological comments to HN?

If you explain to me how the comment I replied to isn't just as generic, and what you mean by "ideological" that is present in my comment and not in the parent, sure.

You allow a claim, coated in "wondering", an old chestnut trotted out time and time again -- and don't the clear refuting of it, by one of the greats in the field? There are no principles here you are applying fairly, it's utterly arbitrary. My point stands. Graying it out just adds the data that some people would rather bury and smear it, than learn. That's on them.

And no, it doesn't lead to any conversation of any kind, because agreement is expressed in upvotes, and I doubt anyone can muster a coherent rebuttal. I don't see you trying either, you just say what would have happened, if you hadn't made replying impossible. Weizenbaum is correct, and apparently, some people cannot let that stand.

> It's against the site guidelines because it leads to repetitive threads which are tedious at best and nasty at worst.

Which part of them?

> This site is supposed to be for curious conversation and those things are not compatible.

Saying "it" and "those things" doesn't make up for a clear definition of them.

Actually I missed that you were linking to a 1985 article by Weizenbaum. I agree, that's more interesting. Had I seen that I probably wouldn't have replied to you here.

On the other hand:

(1) "You can't change rape by being a good rapist" is just flamebait. Please don't.

(2) Your account has mostly been posting in ideological arguments and it all looks pretty generic to me. Please don't do that either.

If you want an explanation about why we don't want generic discussion on HN, and above all not generic ideological discussion, there are plenty at these links:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

(For whatever it's worth, I was sincerely wondering because I don't know what the actual labor constraints on these companies/agencies might be. I suspected they aren't enough to make much of a difference when developers walk away in protest, and so I asked.)

(Also, I think it was clear that I was questioning strategy not morality.)

If a rapist stops being a rapist, does someone immediately turn around and pay someone else to become a rapist? No? Then the rape analogy isn't a perfect fit. The question is still valid, IMO.