
Coders of the world unite: can workers curb the power of Big Tech? - jefurii
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/oct/31/coders-of-the-world-unite-can-silicon-valley-workers-curb-the-power-of-big-tech
======
dahdum
Seems like the premise of this article is that the highly paid tech workers in
SV will unite to undermine the growing prosperity of the companies that employ
them by driving them to be overtly political. To impose specific ideological
constraints on existing open platforms. To pick sides and stand firm even at
the cost of growth and profit.

I'm skeptical even if the bull market continues. I think once the next
recession hits and tech workers get laid off in droves it'll go right back to
California Ideology.

~~~
Apocryphon
There's rumblings of dissatisfaction already. Anti-ageism, anti-sexism, anti-
sexual harassment, anti-terrible working conditions (see Amazon scandals,
video game industry), all the way to stuff like anti-open office and anti-
whiteboarding complaints. Also that despite relatively high pay compared to
other industry, tech workers are not being paid commensurate to the profit
they bring their companies. Badly structured equity deals. Golden handcuffs.

Could tech workers actually unite and do something about it? Uncertain. But
there's causes for it.

~~~
dahdum
All your anti-X examples are valid issues, and most of these large companies
are very actively (and publicly) trying to improve those metrics. Google,
Facebook, and other unicorns are going to great lengths to improve equality in
hiring, compensation, and working environment. I see no reason to believe that
won't continue, due in part to increased internal pressure.

However, none of those efforts are going to substantially increase their costs
or reduce their market share. Their tech worker demographics may shift, but
overall income inequality will remain.

"tech workers are not being paid commensurate to the profit they bring their
companies" Isn't this true of every company that's not a cooperative of some
type?

------
tareqak
From the article:

In an interview with Logic magazine in June, Maciej Ceglowski of Pinboard laid
out all the reasons why the usual methods that the public has used to exert
pressure on large companies will not work in the case of platforms like Google
or Facebook.

First, boycotts are unlikely to be effective. Many big tech companies are
near-monopolies. Facebook is fun because everyone you know is on Facebook. The
Google algorithm works well because everyone uses it to Google things. If
Amazon has put all your local stores out of business, it is not so easy to
take your business elsewhere. A growing number of gig-economy jobs rely on
apps built on top of these platforms. Social media networks are used for
background checks on everything from job applications to renting a place to
stay. They have become part of the infrastructure of everyday life – like
electricity or running water.

\---

Traditionally, boycotting works because you refuse to do business with whoever
you are boycotting in that there is was direct link customer relationship
between the boycott-ee and boycott-er. In the case of Google and Facebook, the
people searching or posting aren't the customers, the ad buyers are, so you
can boycott them instead. And in the case of Facebook, boycott-ers can really
make it painful by using the same platform to organize. Yes, it's more
indirect, so it definitely more likely to be ineffective, but I think it is
still possible. If boycott-ers really wanted to turn up the heat, they could
escalate by refusing to do business with vendors and major investors, or
refuse provide services to C-level executives, board members, vendors, and
investors. Now of course, boycotting activity should remain peaceful, and not
endanger life (either through causing harm, or preventing access to life-
saving medical care or necessary nutrition). However, it is totally possible
to be both peaceful and to be a very painful thorn at the side of the boycott-
ee. If you have a security mindset/background, it is basically "think like an
attacker", but with a different set of criteria, constraints, and allowable
tools.

------
pmoriarty
Techies are famously apolitical. Nose-down in the code is where most of them
like it, and as long as they can make the big bucks or work on interesting
stuff at the likes of Facebook, Apple or Google, they'll avoid thinking too
hard about the ethics of what they're enabling.

~~~
clairity
that's simply not true. at the very least, you need to separate politics from
policy in your quip.

many techies i've met are keenly interested in policy discussions (how to
design better systems). fewer seem to be interested in politics (the jockeying
of individuals for power).

but even then, i'm not sure the mean and deviation around those two poles
warrant generalizations like yours.

~~~
Bartweiss
I think a lot of this perception really just stems from how many programmers
aren't conveniently aligned along the American political axis.

There's a strong tendency to say that anyone who doesn't have an easily-
legible stance "isn't political", but that elides the difference between
"doesn't care" and "isn't compatible with the existing political options".
Even on "politics versus policy", I meet some programmers who limit themselves
to policy based on lack of political interest, and some who limit themselves
based on lack of political options.

If you're something like left-libertarian or a privacy-supporting technocrat,
modern US parties have roughly nothing to offer you. Those views aren't just
outside the mainstream, but perpendicular to it. You can't just try to pull
the Democrats left or the Republicans right to reach your views, you have to
hope for some complex multi-directional change.

Many of the most political programmers I know have one of those positions. So
they lobby against SOPA, or push for pollution taxes over caps, but they don't
see much value in advocating for any of the existing players.

(Of course, programmers are also just normal people; all of these
generalizations are best understood not as actually common but as how
programmers diverge from the mainstream when they do diverge.)

~~~
clairity
yah, no one is really aligned with conventional political parties, because
we're trying to squeeze 230 million voting-age citizens (in the US) into
(effectively) 2 increasingly disconnected boxes.

political parties seem to have detached themselves from the common citizen as
they chase moneyed donors (who themselves have concentrated in the past few
decades). power is consolidating along many dimensions, and that's both
disconcerting and isolating to us ordinary citizens.

------
theptip
Point:

> Big Tech is broken. Suddenly, a wide range of journalists and politicians
> agree on this.

Counterpoint:

> According to Morning Consult, Wired reports, 88 percent of respondents view
> Google favorably, with slightly lower numbers for Amazon (72 percent) and
> Facebook (60 percent).

([https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/14/anti-tech-propaganda-
based-o...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/14/anti-tech-propaganda-based-on-
false-premises-commentary.html), hat tip to Slate Star Codex for the link)

This reads to me like manufactured outrage, and it detracts from the valid
points that might be buried behind provocative and misleading ledes like the
one in the OP.

------
throw2016
This does not make much sense. If they cared about these issues they won't be
working for these companies in the first place.

Infact the posturing about liberty and freedom by the early software community
and the whole 'hacker' mythology contrasted with what's happening on the
ground now looks like attention seeking behavior.

These systems are not being designed by non technical people. Engineers have
sold out the rest of society to create more and more invasive spyware and are
happy to hand wave it away.

------
dtornabene
Its incredibly sad how little attention work like this gets here, and while it
may be a waste now, a day later to post this, I'll leave this link in the
hopes that some one sees this later. The author is one of the members of this
magazine, and they do serious, rigorous work, from the left, on technology.

[https://logicmag.io/](https://logicmag.io/)

Check it out, it'll be worth your time.

------
ergoesse
I agree with some parts of the article, others seem fairly silly.

Agree: Tech workers could, in theory, form powerful unions. Tech workers are
horrified by xenophobia, Trump and right-wing propaganda, and really horrified
by their own mostly totally unwitting role in supporting it. I am glad the
author recognizes the flaws in and rejects coming up with some betrayal
theory.

Disagree: Tech workers are flocking to the far left, anti-capitalism and/or
some form of socialism. Tech workers want to and/or seriously think about
unionizing, which should be done to achieve far leftish goals. Tech workers
want to help unionize and unionize with blue collar workers that they have
little in common with. The author notes that existing organized unions and
left-wingish groups sometimes seem to already rather openly resent tech
workers, but does not seem to consider whether that would be a practical
problem. Tech worker and blue collar unions would of course agree with each
other. A union-controlled silicon valley will of course naturally always do
the "right thing" which will always be completely obvious and everyone will
agree upon.

On the one hand I sometimes wish tech was more democratic. I wish there were
stronger moral warrants that could be collectively stated. But I think some
people see organized labor with stars in their eyes, it's still another group
of humans that might collectively do short-sighted, self-interested things,
and might end up disagreeing on what seem like fundamental ground truths with
someone like the author of this article or any other particular person.

And the single biggest gripe every tech worker has is the real estate crisis,
which is caused by a perfect storm of short-sightedness, self-interest and bad
ideas of local left-wingish politics...

------
ironchef253
These articles are utter nonsense.

Large tech companies are beloved by the vast majority of consumers and
workers. The only groups of people dissatisfied with them are: (a) members of
the government, who don't like to see anyone becoming more powerful or
influential than them without being subjected to numerous regulations and
restrictions and (b) the media, who need articles to print to get people to
click on ads and who often have ties to the groups who fall under (a). Finally
there is (c) companies who have to compete with large tech co's.

Most people reading what I just wrote will assume I am some kind of troll - I
assure you I am not. Aside from perhaps Amazon, many people would kill to work
at these companies and most of the workers at these companies would not quit
if given the option. It certainly isn't the average tech worker that is
unhappy!

For consumers: Go outside on the street right now and ask the first person you
see how they feel about: Android, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Uber, Netflix.
Chances are, you are going to meet someone that rabidly consumes services from
all of these companies on a daily basis and couldn't be more satisfied.

The idea that Facebook and others are "beleaguered" is fairly baseless. They
are doing better than ever! If anything, these companies are likely to get tax
cuts and incentives under Trump so they can keep doing better. The idea that
there is going to be any regulatory restriction or anti-trust claims against
these companies anytime soon (especially under Trump) seems far-fetched. We
are talking about 3 - 8 years before anything is really done to them by
government regulatory agencies.

For this reason: It is really strange to see these articles being written when
they are so far away from reality.

Keep in mind, Trump's goal is to support the US economy. Why would he attempt
to start dismantling key corporations that compete with many, many Chinese and
overseas competitors on his watch? It will never happen.

As for Facebook's "Fake News" problem:

Allegations that Russia used Facebook to "disseminate fake news" are a thinly
disguised power grab by the government, nothing more. The evidence that the
small ad purchases threw the election is completely baseless, despite what you
have read in the media. The entire "Fake News" angle is the covert that is
being used to attempt to implement Chinese-style censorship in the United
States. Anyone who really believes in "Fake News" is just begging for
censorship of all Internet content.

Watching the media printing and re-printing this storyline is very similar to
the "Trump campaign melting down from within" stories that came up every week
during the presidential campaign. Not only where these stories not true, they
were politically motivated.

------
austenallred
The Guardian really has it out for Silicon Valley these days. Every day
there’s a new article. Pretty astounding.

~~~
StevePerkins
> " _In response to concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 election,
> politicians are threatening to take action against companies they have long
> left alone. By late September this year, when the Senate intelligence
> committee demanded that Facebook, Google and Twitter conduct internal
> investigations – and those companies admitted that, yes, foreign actors had
> used their platforms to communicate misinformation that was viewed millions
> of times by voters in hotly contested swing states – it seemed fair to ask
> whether democracy could survive them._ "

I think the above quote is telling. A not-so-insignificant portion of the
media class is grasping at the " _Russia 'hacked' the election!_" story, with
the same fervor as a Birther grasping for President Obama's birth certificate.

