The only thing worse than an echo chamber is letting a self-created bad idea fester in the head.

I came to the conclusion a few months ago that software developers and coders who worked at Meta, Google, Amazon, etc are as culprit as their CEOs and the company itself. I will lay down my points below, but I understand that this might be a logical extreme of my distaste for these corporations.

Here’s my rationale:

  1. Actions of the company they serve: The corporations they serve actively disenfranchise users, track them, sell their private / personal information to unscrupulous parties without any care on how it affects the person, or the society. They thrive on engagement rather than content. They have “commodified” the fundamental right to privacy. This has real world implications that has directly resulted in the spread of misinformation, political unrest, threatened elections, riots, and deaths of thousands of people.
  2. Awareness of the consequences: By virtue of their position, these are people with the capacity to read, and think for themselves. There are news articles: across the political spectrum in all major news sites, that report how the platform/ company they serve negatively affects society. Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica fiasco, Snowden’s expose, etc are credible and well documented examples that even non-tech people are aware. Yet they choose to ignore all this, and continue working / seek to join these companies.
  3. Cowardice: It is often wrapped in the garb of “self-interest”, but they do not raise their voice when they know that the software and platform they’re told to develop is going to be used to spy on their brethren. They claim they’re trying to make a living, but can use their skills to develop counter products to these horrible companies, or work for those that are sensitive and conscientious towards customer’s needs and welfare.
    • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      3 months ago

      Yeah kinda sets up a dangerous quid pro quo situation where the govt gets to go around due process by asking nicely and so has no incentive to improve privacy rights

      • kersplomp@programming.dev
        0·
        2 months ago

        The government had a warrant, read the article.

        It’s just made confusing by the fact that the thief had signed into the victim’s phone, so it makes for a good clickbait story “police got the wrong guy’s data”

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          2 months ago

          My brother in Christ, you first.

          The govt had a warrant:

          that required Google to provide information on all devices it recorded near the killing, potentially capturing the whereabouts of anyone in the area.

          Reiterating my point, it’s just as useful for the govt to not pass laws to protect private harvesting of our data as it is for the corporations selling it.

    • kersplomp@programming.dev
      0·
      2 months ago

      If by “when asked” you mean “given a search warrant with very clear evidence that this man had stolen a car”, then… Yes? I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here.

      The ex-boyfriend had signed into the guy’s phone. It’s not like the police just cast a wide net and randomly got his data.

    • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      The police told the suspect, Jorge Molina, they had data tracking his phone to the site where a man was shot nine months earlier. They had made the discovery after obtaining a search warrant that required Google to provide information on all devices it recorded near the killing, potentially capturing the whereabouts of anyone in the area.

      I hate Google as much as everyone here, but we shouldn’t equate complying with a warrant to “give it to the cops when asked.” They were required to give it.