because what people do in their jobs have little to do with their values. It's an economic and financial transaction first, and rarely an ethical transaction.
I'm glad that people who worked on these sorts of software still have friends who dont think like you do. Using social ostracization to implement public policy is a terrible idea. Rather you ought to be doing activism and promote privacy and outlaw bossware.
Doing it "for the money" is not a free card to do anything unethical when it's easy to say no and get another job.
An extreme example: Was voluntarily being a guard in Auschwitz fine because it was legal? Should you be able to get away with saying "I only did it for this money"?
why is starving the arbitrary line in the sand? Why isn't "a great home in a HCOL area" the line? Or some other line? Ethics is subjective to each person - this is why if there's actions that shouldn't be taken, it ought to be encoded in law, rather than as ethics.
The bottom line is, by saying that other people ought to have more "ethical consideration" when they have to make an economic sacrifice to enact that ethical consideration, you're also implying that they should be sacrificing their own benefit for your benefit. It's hypocrisy adjacent.
I'm all for advocacy in lawmaking to ensure that bossware or spyware is illegal. But i would certainly not look down on someone who is currently making such software - after all, it's not their fault that this software is being made.
> An extreme example:
yes, i would. The guards at auschwitz may not be nazis, or they may be. Them working there is no indication of what their personal sense of ethics are. That's why you don't fight the guards, but against the central gov't that is actually imposing nazi-ism.
Starving is not very "arbitrary" because it means life or death, and you can't expect people to choose death over doing something unethical.
If more people say no to doing unethical things (or show disapproval of those things being done), it'll be harder and more expensive for companies to find people who will do said things. Software engineers working in online gambling make a lot more where I live, which makes that industry less profitable. That's way more effective than waving signs on the street.
Why do you feel that you can't be held accountable for your actions as long as you get paid for it? Do you not want a better world? Or do you think it's up to others to do something about it, and not you?
which is what everyone already does. After all, everyone continues to burn fossil fuels, even if they know it's contributing to pollution.
The point is that it is natural and acceptable for an individual to ensure their own comfort and wellbeing, to the extend allowable by law. Why would one suffer any sacrifice, if they do not directly see the effects of that sacrifice benefiting themselves?
This is why there's a need for gov't and regulation and laws. Collectively, people can agree not to take action which would benefit oneself at the expense of somebody else. This cannot happen unilaterally.
> Do you not want a better world?
of course i want a better world. Who doesnt? The question isn't whether one wants a better world - the question is whether you will be willing to sacrifice more than your neighbour for this better world, if the neighbour is going to be able to gain the same benefits from your sacrifice without having to sacrifice his own.
This sort of thinking is why we’re facing such terrible conditions.
But it’s fine. I’ll recycle even if my brother has said he doesn’t see the point. I’ll walk short distances that my buddy drives. And I’ll resent that people like them (and apparently you) are too self-important to endure a bit of discomfort because it’s the right thing to do for the good of the species.
Apologies that this is harsh and combative. I find the attitude above very hostile towards our shared future.
Huh? I've never seen a job as a way to earn money. I can't just sell myself. I can't work at a place that I don't ideologically align with, no matter the salary.
And one of my values is very simple: being respectful to your user is not optional.
Most people don't ascribe to this type of ideological discipline. Most people choose to maintain economic advantage, at the cost to ethical considerations (which are certainly more fluid - after all, everybody has a price).
I think the trust in software is heavily affected by badly behaving parts of the industry, especially the security industry that addresses mainly IT customers and I won't hold back against clear indignation of surveillance-ware chasing a quick buck by scaring people into a position where they believe they need it.
I also know enough about management and know what types of manager this enables. It isn't the productive ones. An employer has the right to demand performance from his employees and there are ways to do that without questionable software. But parts of the industry decided that it can use the opportunity of weak legislation to sell their scams. I believe this is a problem for everyone. But sure, in the long run legislation is necessary. That wasn't always the case and privacy and real security of users was paramount to developers.
The same is true for education btw.
My values would not allow me to work for a company engaged in operations that I considered unethical. I would not be friends with anyone who worked for NSO Group or the CIA, for example.
I don’t know why you’d criticize someone for having ethical standards.
And especially for software developers it's not as if they don't have an abundance of options.
Most of the people here would happily work for mass surveillance corporations like Google or Facebook.
It is the minimum requirement of management to set goals that workers need to achieve. Either these goals are met or they are not.