Hacker News Reader

Comment by kitsune_ | Hacker News Reader

From a moral philosophy perspective, corporations like Google display a concerning ethical imbalance when they fail to proactively uphold the common good in scenarios where there's no direct financial benefit. A question to HN, since there are a ton of Googlers on here, what are the justifications of those who work within such organizations, particularly when there are other companies that seem to manage a better balance between profit and public responsibility? Is it really just about money, status and working on "cool tech"? I see a lot of submissions about FAANG companies "doing wrong" on here but I rarely see a discussion about us software developers being active participants in this sort of behavior.

View on HN

Google has two options here:

1) Accept all take down notices at face value and let the courts handle disputes

2) Become a mediator and open themselves up for liability

It's no surprise Google chooses option 1 given the scale they must operate at. It's a consequence of the legal system which makes Google liable for not taking action immediately on valid claims, but also making it such validity not determined until after claims have been reviewed by the courts.

And a consequence of their choice to operate at a certain scale.

To be fair to Google even if Youtube shrunk overnight to Vimeo size they would still likely follow the same policy, due to how the law is written.

In fact that might be Vimeo's current policy too, though I'm not sure on their end.

Exactly this. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads and demanding they operate at an untenable scale. Unbridled capitalism forces that.

This is a false dichotomy that lets Google off the hook for irresponsibility and amorality.

If Google’s management is not responsible for Google’s pathological behavior, then nobody is.

Exactly. It's not like it would be that difficult to provide a single shred of support for users that isn't hidden at the center of a labyrinth that most people cannot find their way through, but excusing that by saying the larger labyrinth is even more difficult overlooks the fact that labyrinths are inherently designed to contain evil and we shouldn't ever have to navigate them.

Labyrinths are designed to trap monsters. The only reason to put humans into them is to feed those monsters.

Who's going to take them to court for being too strict? That's the issue.

Also, I'll admit it feels strange to monetized what is now public domain works to begin with. That's the least of the issues here but still one to consider with such works going forth.

No, this is a result of how the DMCA is written. If a content distributor is notified of infringing content, they must take immediate action or else face penalties. The problem is, there's no definitely way for a content distributor to know if content is truly infringing until a court has made it's decision.

This puts content distributors in a precarious position. The only way to ensure liability is minimized is to to assume any complaint is valid and take immediate then arbitrate on the back-end.

There is a direct financial benefit. Their pseudo-DMCA automated takedown process, biased toward big media interests, has protected them from massive lawsuits.

For me, it boils down to the question of participation in a flawed but powerful system in a hope of leading to better outcomes, or its avoidance in the hope of its downfall. This is the same line of reasoning you can apply to political elections in almost any country.

I have no illusion of being irreplacable, or of the FAANG companies going down. Even if my departure would create a ripple, hiring is not, and will not ever be a problem. There is an endless supply of purely financially motivated and reasonably talented people. To leave would be to let a worse person fill my seat. Conversly, I get to work with a lot of honest people towards better things, in the scope we have control over. You can't fix everything, but often you can really make a difference on what's right in front of you.

It's a mix of what you just said, and many more.

But besides that, I work there because I actually believe that the company still does a lot of good. And from what I can tell, most people around me do too.

Are other companies really any better? Where can you work that is definitively "morally pure" and have such reliable income and comfortable lifestyle? (Or even in the same ballpark?)

It's pretty much the same question as asking why everyone doesn't go work for non profits or NGOs. Or move away from the US and stop supporting bad US government behavior with our taxes...

> Or move away from the US and stop supporting bad US government behavior with our taxes...

Why would you need to move away? There's a grand tradition in some communities (Quakers, for example) of paying taxes _except_ for the portion (based on national budget) that would be going to support the military. Sure there may be "consequences", but would they not be worth it?

I'll give Microsoft props for open-sourcing a lot of their proprietary products (e.g. DOS, major components of Windows 3.11, etc) - though it's a shame that a lot of their stuff can't be re-released because it includes source licensed from other companies (e.g. Internet Explorer)..

Don't forget id Software too (granted, they open-source their game engines, while their game content remains paywalled - but it's the spirit that counts)

> Or move away from the US and stop supporting bad US government behavior with our taxes...

As long as you're a US citizen or green card holder, moving away from the US won't stop the US from taxing all of the money you make anywhere in the world. Giving up citizenship for tax reasons is also illegal and can get you a lifetime ban on re-entering the US.

Edit: with the very important caveat of Puerto Rico. I'm not a lawyer or accountant, but my understanding is that residents of Puerto Rico don't have to pay federal income tax.

Any for profit company does not act with 100% pure morale moves. Some do less some do more good, where do you draw the line? Google does a lot of good too, educating, bringing Internet to people who never had it before, being a diverse employer etc.

So because they have some morally questionable choices every developer should quit? There is no black and white.

> I see a lot of submissions about FAANG companies "doing wrong" on here but I rarely see a discussion about us software developers being active participants in this sort of behavior.

That's because i) there are better venues for that sort of discussions than the HN, ii) there is no reason that everyone (or even a fraction of them) should talk actively about their employer, and iii) that line of thought can be recursively applied to any other group, giving rise to common behaviors described in i) and ii).

I have a pet peeve when people use the phrase "begging the question" when they really mean "raising the question". Begging the question is kind of technical and it's sometimes hard to think of examples. You have provided one here.

Your supposition that they fail to uphold the common good is unsubstantiated (and arguably must be, because it is arguably wrong.).

And arguably a corporation can neither be moral nor immoral, as only its individual stakeholders are moral actors.

A corporation is a collection of people. If these people are doing immoral actions, so is the corporation. Everything that happens by human action is moral or immoral.

How do you suppose one should aggregate the contributions from all the different stakeholders?

I don’t think you can.

It seems you might be arguing a that it's untenable to account for individual actions. While a precise measurement is certainly infeasible, there are numerous philosophical frameworks that look to aggregate morality on a scale that can be compared, e.g. Utilitarianism and Consequentialism.

As far as I am aware many people have tried to prove so under those 'philosophical frameworks', but they've never succeeded so far.

If you know of one, can you link a proof?

What do you even mean by proof here?

I'll do it differently. A State is a collection of many people, and a lot of States do evil things. The dictatorships in the Middle East, for example, and there is another example I won't include, but you can guess. Do you not see those organizations (because States are organizations at the end of the day), as evil? If corporations in those countries help those regimes, do you think those corporations are still amoral?

Proof of an actual, bonafide, non self-contradicting, etc..., 'philosophical frameworks that look to aggregate morality on a scale that can be compared'?

>there are other companies that seem to manage a better balance between profit and public responsibility

How's the comp and WLB? Can you list these companies?

Indeed has been very good on all counts.

Bluntly, no one gives a flying fig about moral philosophy or upholding what internet denizens think is "proactively upholding the common good" for much, much less money than what Google pays, even when said denizens happen to be right. Almost no one walks away from Omelas.

Once you reach FAANG levels of compensation, lulling oneself into complacency by internalizing marketing like "don't be evil" or "our products are loved by billions of customers" becomes even easier.

It's about the money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com