
Mozilla Wants Young People to Consider ‘Ethical Issues’ Before Taking Tech Jobs - pseudolus
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxenxx/mozilla-wants-young-people-to-consider-ethical-issues-before-taking-jobs-in-tech
======
herbstein
I'm just starting my 6th (and last) semester of my bachelor degree. During the
semester we are exploring the ethics and morality of the modern computing
evolution. The exploration includes the difference between publishers and
editors, going back to basics of the "what and why" of privacy, and how
companies exploit our (lack of) privacy to gain further growth.

Unfortunately it's a course a lot of my classmates have expressed disdain for.
To them it sounds more like a "gender-studies course" (their words) than a
course for "super serious no-bullshit smart people" (my interpretation). I'm
hoping the readings will have them reconsider and realize how important
considering the ethical implications of their programs.

As an example: a friend and a classmate works for $bigcorp. He had an idea for
an employee engagement system. The idea was that every employee had a digital
avatar that follows them around on the premises. So (as an example) when they
go to the coffee machine their avatar high-fives the avatar of another person
who's also getting coffee. This, as you can imagine, requires tracking the
movement of employees to a fairly high degree. The project got two months into
development before the "right" person heard about it, raised a fuzz, and got
the project cancelled.

Neither my friend nor my other classmates see the problem with the precise
tracking of the every move of every employee - that scares me a lot.

~~~
_bxg1
I took one of those courses; it wasn't intellectually stimulating and it felt
like a condescending, corporate-mandated seminar. Even the professor was just
going through the motions. But it doesn't have to be that way, that's just how
it tends to play out.

What we need are not "ethics in tech" courses, but for people _in_ tech to get
more exposure to general _humanities_ education. Require everyone getting a
degree at your university - computer science majors included - to read and
discuss classic literature, history, and philosophy. Exercise the parts of
their brain that deal with questions whose answers can't be reduced to code.
Ethics cannot be covered by a pamphlet of tech-specific rules; to act
ethically, a person needs perspective on human nature and on what it means to
be a member of society.

~~~
wolfgke
> Require everyone - computer science majors included - to read and discuss
> classic literature, history, and philosophy.

These books/things taught me _nothing_ (nil) about ethics - they are about
questions that were relevant centuries ago.

On the other hand: good hard science-fiction literature sometimes _is_ able to
teach you one or two relevant things - even though I admit that ratio "text-
to-read" to "important lessons learned" is rather low (i.e. you have to read
immense amounts to get few important lessons). Because I love science-fiction,
this is rather unimportant to me, but for people who follow my advice and now
start to read science-fiction literature to learn some ethics lessons will be
deeply disappointed if they have no deep love for the science-fiction genre.

~~~
_bxg1
I won't say science-fiction never has substantive ethical content, but one
definitely needs more than that.

> they are about questions that were relevant centuries ago

It's clear you're missing the point: ethics that are specific to a given
technology, or even a specific social structure, are of limited value. If a
person's moral system is going to be rich enough to apply itself to new
technologies and situations that nobody has ever faced before, one needs a
broad perspective on the human condition. A deeper understanding of right and
wrong and the in-between.

Civilization was very different centuries ago, but _people_ were not.

~~~
polishdude20
I think a beneficial course would be one where the students learn about the
history of how controlling certain governments and malevolent agencies can be.
History can tell us a lot about how bad it can get and the implications.
People nowadays are forgetting the things that happened back in Russia under
communist rule for example. We like to believe our information is in good
hands and won't be used for nefarious purposes. We have forgotten how evil
humans can be under certain circumstances.

------
kstrauser
Thanks for spreading the word, Mozilla! I completely stand beside you on this
one. I had an interview for a job that sounded great all around: good pay,
interesting work, technically challenging. But during the interview, the more
I learned about the role, the shiftier it sounded. Before the morning was
over, I realized I'd never be able to attend an EFF meeting or look my
privacy-interested friends in the eye if I accepted the position. I left early
and gave the recruiter a quick note that it wasn't right for me.

I totally get that you've gotta eat, and it would have to be a _really_ bad
job for me suggest that someone choose to go hungry or homeless. However, if
you have the option of taking more than one job, I do think we're ethically
obligated not to go with the awful one. You've got to be able to look at
yourself in the mirror, and to get up each morning without feeling like you're
making the world worse. That counts for a lot.

~~~
esoterica
I think the real takeaway from your story is that you shouldn’t make friends
with judgmental people, otherwise you will let them peer pressure you into
acting against your best interests.

~~~
fishtacos
"I think the real takeaway from your story is that you shouldn’t make friends
with judgmental people, otherwise you will let them peer pressure you into
acting against your best interests."

Socio-cultural pressure has brought us to this level of advancement
civilization and morality wise. This doesn't fall under the umbrella of
"judgemental people" unless you mean to use such a wide brush to literally
encompass everyone that's ever existed. "Peer pressure" is not always negative
and in this case it most definitely wasn't. It was a corrective mechanism that
worked very well for OP.

------
behringer
When I tell people to grow a pair and say no, they tell me to grow up, it's
not how the "real" world works, they say. The fact is, they have no role
models to look up to and teach them how to say no to corruption and immoral or
unethical behavior.

~~~
ditonal
The other favorite arguments are, "if we don't do <unethical> thing, someone
else will, therefore it's ethical". I call it the "selling crack to teenagers"
argument but it was the go-to by Google employees defending the autoaim
killbot project Maven.

There was also an idea that, Google employees are the "good guys" compared to
"evil Amazon", therefore when Google does something, it's de facto good, and
it's better for Google to do the unethical thing since they will do it less
unethically than Amazon.

Google employees care a lot about their "TC" and "GSUs" \- that's it. What
bugs me is that at least Goldman employees and their ilk kind of have that
tacit acknowledgement that they are in it for the lucre. A lot of Googlers
really act like they are in it for the greater good even when the company
picks money over ethics at literally every junction.

~~~
save_ferris
I faced this when I worked at a company that was building a custom fundraising
platform for the Catholic Church while the church was spending millions to
lobby states not to modify statute of limitations to benefit victims of sex
abuse[0].

This is a publicly traded company that explicitly states its mission as
“helping the world do good”, and the executive team used the exact same
argument when someone questioned them on this during an all-hands meeting. It
was one of the most demoralizing moments of my career.

0: [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-church-scandal-
spent-1...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-church-scandal-
spent-10-million-lobbyists-fight-extension-statutes-of-limitations-child-sex-
abuse-vicims/)

~~~
tropo
It's easy to hate on those accused of heinous crimes (both the person and
their employer) but what about the concept of a fair trial?

Imagine you were accused of doing something decades ago. Do you have an alibi
for December 17, 1955? (adjust if you are younger, or imagine being accused of
today's crime in 2077) You will have lost receipts, calendars, and ticket
stubs. The people you were with, who could have served as witnesses, are long
dead. You'll go up against a jury that hears a tragic story about some
helpless child you supposedly harmed. Good luck with that.

It's especially bad that changes in statue of limitations don't just apply
going forward. It really feels like ex-post-facto law, which is expressly
forbidden by the United States Constitution. Cases from about 70 years back
are pushing Scouting BSA into Chapter 11.

~~~
justizin
If you're a member of the Catholic Church and that child was a member of your
congregation and you definitely had contact with them during that time this
isn't going to boil down to dinner receipts.

~~~
milsorgen
That is a very shortsighted viewpoint.

------
throthroaway
Here is one evil engineer's perspective to consider.

I spent the first two years out of college working for a (non-FAANG) very
morally bankrupt company. It was interesting work but the ethics of the
product kind of weighed on me. I left to join a very-early stage startup who's
mission seemed much better and I could comfortably say was at least ethically
neutral, but probably well into the good side of most people's ethical
spectrum (I also thought the tech was super interesting too).

A year or so in and I became exhausted there. I felt super unproductive at
work because the org felt so resistant to processes and had a very team-of-one
cowboy coder mentality towards most projects. The culture felt empty because
almost everyone was remote and being so close to the founders made me detest
what I saw as their narcissistic qualities, and a lack of product traction was
demoralizing. A trip to the dentist revealed that my blood pressure was higher
than normal, especially for my age.

I jumped when my previous company gave me the opportunity to pursue a career
change that I badly wanted but would not have been able to get anywhere else
(I really felt I had a knack for people managing and making eng teams
successful, but the former employer was the only place that would be willing
to take a risk on a new manager with my level of technical experience). I am
so much happier now and have actually noticed a measurable decrease in morning
blood pressure readings that I started taking during my previous, more-ethical
job.

Do I consider myself a shitty person because of the work I do? Sure. I don't
know what the right answer is though, because I'm much happier now and I
struggle to optimize for anything other than myself and those I'm closest to.

------
elmrunner
While I agree with the sentiment, sometimes people just need jobs to survive.
I don't think the burden for keeping tech companies ethical should be placed
on young people who just want to eat

~~~
invalidusernam3
100%, and not just young people. I'm in my mid thirties and I work for a tech
company whose clients include some of the most evil companies in the world. Do
I feel proud about the work I do? Absolutely not. Do I like not starving to
death? Yes. Would I prefer working somewhere else? Absolutely, but life isn't
always that simple

~~~
bitcurious
> Would I prefer working somewhere else? Absolutely...

Have you done anything to act on that preference? Did you send a resume out
this week? Are you networking?

Prioritizing your/your families wellbeing over an abstract evil might make
sense the day you take that job, but that circumstance must be re-evaluated
regularly.

Too often folks talk themselves into thinking what they are doing today is ok
because they didn’t have a choice yesterday.

~~~
shifto
Not OP but yes I have. Places I would like to work either don't want me or the
difference in pay is so big I can't choose them over my current job. I have a
family to maintain and I feel this pressure more ever since I became a dad.

------
Dig1t
As a young person living in the Bay Area with bills to pay and a lower-middle-
class upbringing, the things that I consider when taking a tech job are:

1.) Money 2.) Money 3.) Quality of life (work/life balance, time spent
commuting) 4.) Ethical issues 5.) How Fun/interesting the job is

I imagine that most young people have the same outlook as me.

~~~
yingw787
I wouldn’t disagree, and hopefully at 25 I’m still considered young. Get a
FAANG job that pays well and executes well, then work your way into an elite
tooling / infrastructure team. IMHO tooling / infrastructure is very clean in
terms of ethics, not to mention high transfer value and intellectually
stimulating :D

~~~
xitrium
I'm surprised to see this argument. Tooling and infrastructure are only as
clean as the services they support. I don't think you get to wash your hands
because all you did was build e.g. Palantir a giant database that's great for
storing locations if you know customers will be assassinating political
dissidents with it.

~~~
yingw787
I don't (or no longer) think it's great form to say negative things about
former employers on the Internet, so allow me to expound on the positive
aspects of my point.

I think having great tooling / infrastructure at least gives stakeholders more
options in terms of the business direction they're taking. You can pivot and
execute faster, which to me means you can pivot away from something ethically
bad and execute in a different direction faster.

Great tooling / infrastructure in my mind is also ethically salvageable and
redeemable. A great tool can help an ethically positive division of the
company as it can help an ethically negative division of the company. It may
not always be black and white.

Lastly, great tooling / infrastructure generally requires top talent, which
can move anywhere and is sensitive to things like ethics. Having great tooling
/ infrastructure, or the threat of losing great tooling / infrastructure by
losing talent to ethical issues, can act as pressure for management to choose
certain projects over others. I think Grasshopper is an example of one such
decision.

------
jeremiahlee
I'm so glad this message is being given more credibility. I made a similar
plea in 2016 at the end of the only conference keynote I've ever been invited
to give. [https://www.jeremiahlee.com/posts/fitbit-api-strategy-and-
pr...](https://www.jeremiahlee.com/posts/fitbit-api-strategy-and-
practice/#ethical-practices)

------
kotrunga
I use Firefox every day, I like Rust, and I like what Mozilla stands for. The
hard thing is... I'm pretty sure a significant portion of their revenue comes
from Google, which is ironic.

Source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation)
(It did from 2004-2014, and then probably has from 2017-current)

------
zarathustreal
I really wish someone would give an example of an ethically-biased algorithm
in common use. So many times I discuss this topic with colleagues and come to
realize that their complaints are not valid. The algorithm would perform
"unbiased" when given different data. To me this indicates a complaint about
disparity of the data, but in a more sinister, impossible to reason about way
since it is not logically sound (i.e. the counter example with alternate data
producing unbiased results exists.)

~~~
sudosteph
Even if there exists a set of data that would produce a more ethical result,
would it be fair to say that a potentially biased algorithm cannot be
considered ethical until there is a corresponding algorithm that can either
filter out biased data or generate unbiased input data? Otherwise it seems a
bit pedantic to differentiate between data bias and algorithm bias when both
need to be so closely coupled together to produce any meaningful output at
all.

~~~
zarathustreal
>would it be fair to say that a potentially biased algorithm cannot be
considered ethical until there is a corresponding algorithm that can either
filter out biased data or generate unbiased input data

Absolutely not, if the sample is large enough to be considered representative
how can that data be ethically-biased? Raw data has no ethical implication
whatsoever, human emotion must be considered when assessing ethical value. The
existence of a second representative sample which produces a different ethical
implication is proof that the algorithm would not be ethically biased.

>it seems a bit pedantic to differentiate between data bias and algorithm bias
when both need to be so closely coupled together to produce any meaningful
output at all

On the contrary, it seems disingenuous to argue that an algorithm, a set of
computational steps, is ethically-biased when a counter example (in the form
of a data set) exists. This is akin to blaming the process of eyesight for an
observation of a ethically-repugnant phenomenon. It is not the process of
seeing that causes observation of ethically negative phenomena, one can just
as easily observe ethically positive phenomena through the process of
eyesight. We do not need to have invented glasses that filter out ethically
negative phenomena to prove that the use of ones eyes is a ethically-unbiased
process, the fact that it's possible to observe both ethically positive and
ethically negative phenomena is enough proof.

Bias could be introduced by seeking negative phenomena and avoiding positive
phenomena, but that doesn't imply anything about eyesight itself - it remains
an unbiased process. If we are going to come to any meaningful conclusion
about how to change the results of unbiased algorithms (insert photons into
pupil, decode electric signals into conceptual models, etc,) we need to stay
as logically consistent with our conclusions as possible. Observations should
inform conclusions, not the other way around.

------
creddit
Mozilla's revenue comes almost entirely from selling traffic to Google. If you
think Google is unethical, the same can almost certainly be said for Mozilla.
This is just Tethics a la Silicon Vally on HBO.

~~~
applecrazy
Real life mirrors television once again.

------
kazinator
My message to young people: take as much of the money as you can and run.

Your predecessors have left you enough life challenges as it is to be
pontificating and proselytizing to you about morals.

~~~
52-6F-62
Doesn't that just punt the problem down to the next generation rather than
impacting the preceding one?

~~~
y_tho
And the can punt it down to the next generation. Problem solved.

------
Maximus9000
It would be good to get some concrete bullet points of what's ethical and what
isn't. Is it ethical to work for Netflix knowing that some people might be
wasting their life on your platform?

While I don't like google, what if I worked at Google but on a team that was
doing good (like Angular or 'Project Zero')

~~~
pgcj_poster
This is sort of like saying "it would be nice to have a concrete proof that P
= NP." Determining what's right and wrong is the major endeavor of several
entire fields of scholarship. No one can give you the ultimate answer to this
question. You can develop your own approximation of the answer by empathizing
with other people and reading lots of philosophy, literature, and history.

I think Mozilla is trying to remind techies to think about ethics for this
exact reason: a lot of us have this weird mindset where, unless we can define
something with mathematical precision, then it doesn't exist and we don't have
to worry about it. This is an incredibly unhealthy way to think about ethics,
and it's one of the reasons why our field is sliding towards a bad reputation.

~~~
Maximus9000
I sort of agree... but I do think its worthwhile thinking about best practices
around ethics and writing them down somewhere for all to see.

The GDPR does a decent job in this regard around privacy and data use. Can we
write a similar document to GDPR around other ethical concerns?

------
donretag
"The guide advises students not to work for companies that build technology
that harms vulnerable communities"

I grew up in a vulnerable community. It was called poverty. I am happy to say
nowadays I am no longer poor.

Not everyone was born with a silver spoon like I assume many at Mozilla's
leadership were, or live in the Bay Area where job choices are plentiful.

~~~
anarchodev
I'm not sure I understand why you'd advocate specifically building technology
that harms those in poverty just because you've experienced it. Did the
experience make you resent poor people, or do you just feel that technology
which harms them pays well enough to justify the consequences?

~~~
Kalium
I believe GP is saying that the quoted statement comes from a position of
_immense_ privilege, where people can safely assume that they have plenty of
options that will keep them out of poverty while also being ethical.

------
peterwwillis
Do they really? Students who have taken an applied ethics class may be faced
with inconvenient truths, like:

\- There is no universal truth (like "killing is bad"). Whatever "bad thing"
people are concerned that tech companies are doing might not actually be bad
in context. Perhaps there are multiple contexts, and possibly unknown states,
creating a multitude of potential ethical states for a single "thing". This
may conflict with the very reason they're getting interested in ethics,
creating a dilemma (and possible paradox).

\- Ethics is uncomfortable, because you find yourself wrestling with questions
like whether the "greater good" is more important than "individual good", or
who should have rights, and what kind, and why.

\- You find that what are often generally-held truths are in fact not true
when taken under study with evidence, so you have to decide whether you will
accept a generally-held truth or a truth backed by evidence, and when there is
no evidence, what to do.

\- It could be that Mozilla is just trying to influence people into not taking
certain jobs at specific companies so they can achieve whatever their own
organization's goals are. If so, what does that say of Mozilla's ethics?

\- You may not find any answers, and still have to decide what to do with a
dilemma.

------
megaman821
The ethical consideration brought up in the article hardly even get a "meh"
compared to many other injustices and evils in this world. Not to mention,
most these "ethics" violations are a product of laziness, not some explicit
goal. It's not like any tech company is plotting how they can make the most
biased face recognition or how many innocent people the military can hurt with
their tech.

Mozilla can try going after future employees, but good luck. People, both end-
users and employees, have shown, by-in-large, that they do not greatly care
about these issues.

------
toper-centage
I don't see enough people talking about this. This applies in special to
developers, since we have a real leverage on the market. If unethical
companies wouldn't capture all top talent, we wouldn't be in this borderline
dystopian situation.

------
Khaine
Perhaps Mozilla should consider the ethics of taking money from those same
corporations _cough_ google _cough_ or for firing a CEO because of his beliefs
_cough_ Brendan Eich _cough_.

Maybe they should practice what they preach

------
arghblarg
Our economy, educational system, heck our entire society is basically
structured (ideally, from the ruling/moneyed class's perspective) to keep the
great masses just happy enough not to revolt, keep the machines working, and
no more. Many people literally cannot afford to make every life choice based
only on their ethics.

------
selfishgene
Create more affordable housing and the ethics will take care of themselves.
Salary is one of the most important factors in most job decisions, especially
for folks that have dependents. And living expenses in a given region, which
are most significantly influenced by real estate valuations, are a big
determinant of salary requirements.

Fix the housing crisis in highly inflated markets by creating more supply
(i.e. rescinding exclusionary zoning bylaws) and job candidates will be able
to afford the more "ethical" choices.

------
praptak
Aka the illusion of distributed individual ethical choices supposedly solving
what is a serious political problem. (With a hint of the tragedy of the
commons)

The destructive greed of corporations can only be solved by organized
political action.

~~~
indigochill
I must be misunderstanding this because the way I read it it invalidates
itself.

If we suppose that we cannot solve the problem with individual ethical
choices, and taking part in political action is indeed an individual choice
(let's assume ethical), then organized political action as an aggregate of
individual ethical choices cannot solve the problem.

Separately from that, I'm skeptical that a majority-ruled political system
that largely runs on "donations" from unethical companies will be moved by an
ethical minority.

~~~
praptak
The key word is "distributed". As afterthought maybe "uncoordinated" would
better convey the meaning.

To address your side point - there are examples of well organized ethical
minorities achieving impressive political goals. Suffragettes, Freedom Riders.

------
downerending
I've worked for "ethical" companies and those decidedly not, and was quite
surprised to discover little or no correlation between that and the ethics of
their employees.

Probably the most ethical thing you can do is to make as much money as you
reasonably can and then donate most of it to the best bang-for-the-buck cause
you can.

------
save_ferris
Companies that build ethically-challenged products that infringe on privacy,
etc. are really, REALLY good at spinning their mission into some “world-
changing” spiel that completely absolves them of responsibility (e.g:
Facebook). And I’ve met so many people in the industry who are out to make
their money first before they start basing decisions on the ethics of tech.

On one hand, it’s good to see ex FB employees speaking out on privacy issues,
but it’s also somewhat hollow because many of them made millions on the very
technology they’re now speaking out against. Honestly, how much weight does
Sean Parker’s criticism of FB really carry? He’s not organizing a movement
against FB, he’s doing one interview and then going back to his jet-setting
lifestyle.

Ethics will never be a first-class citizen in the minds of all technologists
as long as the money worship continues.

~~~
iudqnolq
> are really, REALLY good at spinning their mission into some “world-changing”
> spiel that completely absolves them of responsibility (e.g: Facebook).

Really? I don't think many people outside the valley believed that about FB
ever, and I don't think many people outside FB believe that now.

FB doesn't seem all that good at spin in general... [1] [2] [3]

[1]: How Facebook’s crisis PR firm triggered a PR crisis
[https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/17/18099065/facebook-
define...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/17/18099065/facebook-definers-nyt-
pr-crisis)

[2]: Facebook's PR Crisis Is a Mess of Its Own Making
[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-21/facebo...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-21/facebook-
s-public-relations-crisis-is-a-mess-of-its-own-making)

[3]: What Did Zuckerberg Know? Lessons from Facebook’s Latest Scandal
[https://www.prnewsonline.com/lessons-Facebook-data-
crisis](https://www.prnewsonline.com/lessons-Facebook-data-crisis)

~~~
Maximus9000
> I don't think many people outside the valley believed that about FB ever

The main stream media had some very glowing reviews of facebook during the
'arab spring'. Glowing articles were written about how these wonderful social
media platforms help organize people to start revolutions like the arab
spring.

------
a_imho
So it is bad for others to work at Google but perfectly acceptable to do
business with them?

~~~
djohnston
TETHICS!

------
automatoney
I'm all for this and I love that there's a big push for thinking about ethics.
What I want to know is how can people find ethical companies? Most advice ends
up being "stay away from Amazon/Google/Palantir/Facebook/etc.", but how can
people best find alternatives? One of the appeals of the big names is that you
know they've got lots of interesting tech work and you know it'll be good for
your career - the "brand" name cuts out on a lot of research you might
otherwise have to do.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Well people here really love to talk about how great it is to start business,
so why don't they start ethical businesses? Be the change you want to see in
the world?

My guess would be because it isn't actually very profitable, and even if they
start out with the best of intentions they allow themselves to be acquired and
trade ethics for money anyway.

Maybe I'm just really cynical about people in tech, but I feel like all this
talk about ethics only happens when you're on the wrong side of it and most
people here would be plenty willing to sell out if given half a chance.

------
ropiwqefjnpoa
Sounds good, but those student loans still need to get paid.

~~~
jes5199
income-based deferment!

~~~
ratliffchrisb
That would be the opposite of paying your loan.

------
hartator
Like paying their CEO in the millions while laying staff?

------
at_a_remove
Whose ethics?

This question is never explicitly brought up and I think it ought to be,
because in the silence a tacit assumption that it is the ethics of those
pleading which will be adopted. When people harangue me to vote, I will light
up and ask, "What if I voted for the exact opposite candidate you want?" So
for some people I suggested Trump, for others Clinton. The silence becomes
uncomfortable.

It isn't "consider ethical issues" or "vote," it's "adopt the ethics I have,"
and "vote the way I will."

Not admitting this and being explicit about it is what makes me doubt the
ethics of those pushing the considerations in the first place.

~~~
decasteve
I tend to agree with your sentiment. I read the Mozilla document and it’s not
so much about an analytical approach to ethics and computing but an activist
approach based on particular values (many of which I personally agree with but
that’s beside the point).

In terms of ethics, the papers by Batya Friedman and Peter Kahn were
incredibly influential to me and many of which I would consider required
reading for anyone interested I studying ethics and computing.

~~~
at_a_remove
Yes, it's that sort of thing that makes me very doubtful. On a meta-level, if
one's ethics require some kind of subterfuge, underhandedness, and so forth to
be introduced to a theoretically-naive audience to slip past their radar, I
begin to doubt the package itself. Is it really a Trojan horse?

Usually that sort of thing comes coupled with "you are either with us or
against us" later when that ethical bundle is in some phase of ascendancy.

On the other hand, taking a package whole seems to be less work,
intellectually, than "be mindful, examine your choices and their impacts, _cui
bono_ " and so on.

------
quotemstr
Real ethics is a fine thing to consider, but these days, I see people take
their personal political beliefs, call them "ethical", and claim that policy
that goes against their preferences is "unethical". This abuse of language has
become sadly commonplace in tech today. The people who do this struggle with
the question "who decides what's ethical?", because in their hearts, they
believe the answer is that _they_ get to decide.

Nowadays, when I see someone campaigning for "ethics" in tech, I just assume
that this person is just engaging in general issue activism, close my eyes
against the distraction, and get back to work. It's sad that we've reached
this point.

In truth, the best way to stop unethical behavior is to make a law against it
--- that way the process of rule-making is fair and transparent. The
democratic process doesn't guarantee legitimacy, but it's better than anything
else. The democratic process should decide the rules under which a society
operates, and we shouldn't let a few self-appointed moral guardians
misrepresent their personal preferences as universal rules and set the bounds
of whole societies.

------
mc32
This is a prisoners dilemma in multiple dimensions.

One, if you don’t take the job someone else will.

Two, if your country acts ethically, will other countries?

So, the only real solution would be to establish an international framework to
define what is ethical and not and have some sticks behind that for
enforcement. Otherwise it can end up as a self inflicted wound.

------
octokatt
Can a connection be formed between ethics education for tech, and ethics
education in general?

I get it, ethics isn't a "hard skill" like programming or math, but can we
move forward with problem solving with a confirmed axiom that ethics, and to
an extension philosophy, should be a part of basic education again?

------
GaryNumanVevo
In order to truly address "Ethical Issues" we need to build solidarity between
all professions that run up against these problems. Lawyers for example,
defending large corporations etc. It would be nice to have a framework for
defining what is and isn't ethical

~~~
briandear
> Lawyers for example, defending large corporations etc.

What about lawyers that defend violent criminals?

~~~
GaryNumanVevo
That’s slightly different given that individuals are innocent until proven
guilty. I chose to single out large companies because they can pay their
lawyers large amounts of money. It’s about harm reduction across the board

------
gbasin
Tethics. You've invented Tethics.

------
ezoe
Interesting, an organization who just recently fired a lot of employees
without warning, talking about ethical consideration.

------
nehagup
Sounds like Amazon wants people to align with their company principles.

------
ill0gicity
I see someone at Mozilla watched the "Silicon Valley" Tethics episode.

~~~
close04
This kind of thing was suggested by many before. I also commented on this
since (software) engineers tend to have a huge role in our lives now.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19797367](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19797367)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20075870](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20075870)

------
makerofspoons
I believe they meant 'CU Boulder' not 'CSU Boulder'.

------
matheweis
Mozilla wants young techies to consider ethics in their jobs?

Rich words indeed from the corporation that more than doubled executive pay
and then found themselves needing to lay off 70 people to save costs on a
restructuring.

[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/16/mozilla_job_cuts/](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/16/mozilla_job_cuts/)

[https://mobile.twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/12175120497160...](https://mobile.twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1217512049716035584)

~~~
saas_sam
Honest question: If rank-and-file employees are expected to work for market
rates, should executives be expected to work for market rates also? Or do we
think they should work for less than market rates? If so, wouldn't Mozilla be
at risk of having their executives poached by higher paying companies, which
would likely lead to more than 70 employees losing their jobs?

If someone's gonna downvote me I'd appreciate some color on your choice too,
thanks. ;-)

~~~
gibbonsrcool
If there was a maximum wage law then there would be no danger of poaching.

~~~
saas_sam
Hehe, maybe! Or perhaps people would avoid working at places with such laws,
as they tend to do currently with other economies that have strict laws that
make it hard to do business.

~~~
magduf
>Or perhaps people would avoid working at places with such laws, as they tend
to do currently with other economies that have strict laws that make it hard
to do business.

I have no problem with that. Let them leave.

Suppose we set a maximum compensation cap of $10M/year in the US. So
executives can no longer earn more than $10M/year in total compensation
(salary, bonus, golden parachute, etc.).

So a bunch of overpaid execs leave the US. Where exactly are they going to go
where they'll 1) be paid more than $10M/year, and 2) actually be able to do
these super-high-paying executive jobs effectively (i.e., they need to know
the local language, etc.)?

------
analognoise
Build the coolest shit you can.

Hypersonic missiles are way more badass than websites.

------
sjg007
Oooh.. the real world version of #tethics.

------
thrownaway954
jobs are pay checks and nothing more. if you want to feed your family, you put
your ethics aside to earn a living. i love how people who are "well off"
preach as if they will ever be faced with the choice of up holding ethics and
feeding their family. the ceo of mozilla can go fly a kite for all i care.

~~~
inanutshellus
This is an insidious straw-man.

Do not pretend your only options in life are either working for Facebook or
your children starve to death on the street.

Instead, if your recruiter suggests an interview at Facebook or a "Reputation
Management" company or a "really cool face scanning tech" company... maybe act
with a moral compass and say "What else ya got?"

~~~
thrownaway954
"insidious straw-man."

really?

"Do not pretend your only options in life are either working for Facebook or
your children starve to death on the street."

did you even bother to read my comment and understand where i was coming from?

~~~
inanutshellus
> jobs are pay checks and nothing more.

and

> if you want to feed your family, you put your ethics aside to earn a living.

...do not leave a lot of room for interpretation.

------
clubm8
That's rich, since Mozilla mostly hires senior to mid level engineers.

It's very difficult to get an "ethical" job (especially in certain fields like
security) without filling out an SF-86 or working at a place that makes it's
money through surveillance capitalism.

------
yters
Is pushing a particular ethical framework on young people ethical?

~~~
zarathustreal
Can't sell outrage without an ethical framework ;)

------
cosmodisk
It is easy to consider Ethical Issues when your mouth is full of food and your
pockets are lined with gold. The vast majority of people, including those in
tech, don't have those options.

~~~
_bxg1
> The vast majority of people, including those in tech

Huh? The vast majority of us in tech are very well-off, making us the ideal
candidates to sacrifice some small part of that comfort by taking an ethical
stand.

~~~
cosmodisk
You aren't.Yes,you are probably making a few times more than an average person
in the country,but at the same time you want to have bigger house, send kids
to better school,spend your free time going to some nice country on the other
side of the pond and etc. Can you quit your job today and be stress free with
all the commitments you've got, at least for a few months,maybe even a year?

~~~
_bxg1
> you want to have bigger house, send kids to better school,spend your free
> time going to some nice country on the other side of the pond and etc.

That's a lot of assumptions.

> Can you quit your job today and be stress free with all the commitments
> you've got, at least for a few months,maybe even a year?

Yes, I could in fact.

And that despite the fact that I actually make a bit less than the average
engineer with my level of experience, because of the kind of company I'm
working at. I also donate 10% of my pre-tax income to charity and make the
full contributions to my 401k, and I'm still able to put some money into my
personal savings every month.

I realize that not _everyone_ in my industry is in my situation - particularly
outside of the U.S. - but lots of people are.

------
elfexec
It must be nice to live in such a hypocritically privileged bubble of mozilla
and their ilk. Most young people are just looking to find a job that will pay
them enough to pay their student loans, rent, bills and hopefully save some
money for downpayment for a home.

Does Mozilla consider "ethical issues" before they take money from tech
companies and investors? I doubt it considering they sell themselves to google
for money. Are they saying all young people should quit mozilla?

I try to support mozilla and use firefox because I want a diverse browser
market. If mozilla worked on making their browser as good as chrome rather
than spending time with nonsense like this, maybe we wouldn't have had this
happen in the last decade.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/m...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/media/File:StatCounter-
browser-ww-monthly-200901-201905.png)

------
growlist
God forbid they should be allowed to make a decision free from the influence
of leftist propaganda!

~~~
dang
Please don't post ideological flamebait to HN, regardless of which ideology
you favor. We've had to ask you this more than once before. Continuing to
ignore such requests will get you banned here, so please don't do that.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
tmpz22
To me the saddest thing isn't that people sell out. It's how cheap they sell
out for. $120k-180k/yr seems to be the going rate.

~~~
rifung
If you think $120-180k is cheap you are speaking from a place of immense
privilege.

~~~
jshevek
The context here is "the price at which you sell out". You can simultaneously
believe that 120k is a massive salary, and also a sad, disappointing level for
a person to sell out.

