Protesting Facebook dishonesty, Google military projects, or Microsoft ICE projects
vassudanagunta opened this issue · 9 comments
These have all been in the news. Google employees have resigned over a Pentagon artificial intelligence contract, and Google has at least backed out a little. Microsoft employees have protested MS's relationship with ICE, yet Microsoft is making excuses because profits come first. Some high level ex-Facebook employees and execs have railed out against Facebook.
What does this oath have to say about all this? Not the actions of Google, Microsoft or Facebook, but their employees action or lack of action. How many employees kept quiet because the weren't willing to risk being labeled a trouble maker, risk promotions, or quit and give up their high compensation packages?
What about Microsoft's acquisition of GitHub, the de facto home of the open source community. How should users react to GitHub's bait and switch, attracting so many of us on the implied promise of independence and neutrality, but then selling us out for $7.8 billion? Do we allow such actions to go without consequence? Do we ourselves sell out the FOSS movement because GitHub is so comfy for us?
What do signers of this oath think of these principles, which would require conscientious programmers to vote with their feet?
Many of us lament that Facebook will never be held accountable because at the end of the day, its users don't live their convictions. Aren't we the same, unable to leave this programmer's Facebook?
I mean,
Being Evil (TM) is already proscribed by the oath. So the oath itself has plenty to say.
There's some not-so-great working in your principles, but the intent behind them is good.
But; there's a bigger problem. There's no codipedia commons; you've moved to GitLab, but GitLab is another commercial entity intent on selling it's product. So is Sourceforge (they turned evil a few years ago). Until someone viably creates a wikimedia-esque non-profit, and commits to spending the rest of their life tearing their hair out over funding; we can only ever 'choose our pain'.
Yeah, Microsoft's move isn't great; and like all coders, I'm considering my options. GitLab is only a temporary solution; if all the projects on GitHub move to GitLab, then either they'll turn evil, or someone evil will buy that next. Better to think long-term rather than just join the latest mass migration that sounds good and solves nothing.
There's some not-so-great working in your principles, but the intent behind them is good.
Explain. Or submit a pull request. As it says at the top, it is a first draft and wording improvements are welcome.
But; there's a bigger problem. There's no codipedia commons; you've moved to GitLab,
Read the project's wiki. GitLab is categorically better than GitHub in terms of principles and #resistance. Not ideal, but better.
Better to think long-term
Exactly. So why don't you join the project and help?
solves nothing.
Understand that holding GitHub accountable, making their selling us out have consequences is not nothing. It is huge.
In other words, moving off of GitHub is required by the oath the moment that you understand that concentration of power is "evil", along with the other things listed in the principles. If you choose something other than GitLab, good for you. But GitLab is a move in the right direction, even if temporary, as it is for our project.
"Living our convictions is critical." Don't make excuses.
Describing things as a 'cancer' may sound dramatic, but it's hostile and off-putting. The style of writing is very much along the lines of propaganda (they played us for fools!) which may be your intent or may not, but either way I don't like it. A good argument doesn't need dramatic prose to make; it makes itself. Your target audience is scientists and engineers after all.
Have now read the wiki page you linked. Still don't agree that this is unquestionably the best decision at the present time.
Because everything I've written above. I'm not getting guilt tripped into jumping into the water until I know the smoke in the distance isn't pirates, or a ship that's already on fire. I'm also not splitting my attention between two sites, or giving an unknown (I had literally never heard of GitLab before the Microsoft furore) company my data until I've investigated both it, and my other options.
very much along the lines of propaganda (they played us for fools!)
Don't be dishonest. Nowhere does it say "they played us for fools!". It says: We continue to patronize businesses and websites that are dishonest or play us for fools (in which case, we are fools). The way people continue to use Facebook despite how much they lie to us and how much it hurts society... we are fools. GitHub was dishonest because they knew most open source developers signed on because they were independent. They know very well that if Microsoft had bought them early on, they simply wouldn't have grown to this size and dominance. This was a bait and switch, plain and simple.
Still don't agree that this is unquestionably the best decision at the present time.
Who said "unquestionable"? The wiki specifically says "our moving to GitLab isn’t an endorsement of GitLab either as an ultimate solution, or even the best solution available today. We had a chicken and egg problem: we needed to get the project moved ASAP so as to help others move, and to promote projects that can enable others to move."
It is simply a pragmatic choice that made sense right now. We will move again as soon as an option more aligned with the principles is viable. That could be next month, or next year, or longer.
Describing things as a 'cancer' may sound dramatic, but it's hostile and off-putting.
That's only because you don't agree. We are talking about values and ethics here. About honesty and doing the right thing. Not about scientific truth or engineering calculations. I am hostile to advertising, and the advertising "business model" that most of the internet relies on. If "scientists and engineers" followed the links in the section on advertising, they'd see strong points that they'd have trouble refuting. But I think too many "scientists and engineers" in this industry have their salaries paid by advertising to be honest about it.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
@mo-g Do you realize how many people in this industry would consider the programmers oath "propaganda" if they saw it? Microsoft considered open source un-American, communist propaganda. So fitting.
Sorry, I'm bailing out of this conversation.
"It's difficult to get anyone to do anything when you refuse to consider any kind of critical consideration of your proposals"-@mo-g
"It's difficult to get anyone to do anything when you refuse to consider any kind of critical consideration of your proposals"-@mo-g
In other words, if I don't agree with you it can only be because I "refuse to consider"? Do you realize the arrogance or logical fallacy (or both) in that? And how can you write that, @mo-g, after you dismiss my words as "propaganda" and "guilt tripp[ing]"?
Programmer's Oath item zero:
- I will only undertake honest and moral work. I will stand firm against any requirement that exploits or harms people.
I'd love to hear @Widdershin's thoughts. Or that of anyone else who signed the oath.
I signed the oath, and I think this conversation is about something else entirely than the integrity of us software engineers.
I don't like MS's track record either, and I've moved stuff over to Gitlab as well after the purchase for personal reasons (and peer pressure), but I do not think that using Github for hosting is incompatible with the programmer's oath. The oath is about the software you write and take responsibility for, not what Github might potentially do under MS management.
I also believe in judging people and businesses for their individual actions, we have not seen MS transform this into an evil place. I personally don't give MS the benefit of the doubt and thus I moved some personal repos to Gitlab, but I would not call @Widdershin or @mo-g immoral for giving MS the benefit of the doubt. Giving businesses with a bad track record a chance is naive at worst, but it's not evil in my opinion.
So, if you're asking for the opinions of engineers who signed the oath, here's mine. I don't feel hosting the oath here is irreconcilable with its ideals.
Person who raised this recanted their oath over two years ago, and no-one else seems to have raised similar concerns, so I'm clicking the close button. It's still in the archive of closed tickets if anyone wants to reference the discussion in the future.