If you're a janitor or food service worker at Uber, then I apologize for making incorrect assumptions and my thoughts for you would be different.
If you're a janitor or food service worker at Uber, then I apologize for making incorrect assumptions and my thoughts for you would be different.
Perhaps it's self-righteous to argue that nobody should help Palantir provide DHS with a Muslim registry under any circumstances, even if it means negative consequences for them and their family (and for most software engineers it really won't!). But that's what I believe, and I'd like to think it's the choice I would make in that situation, and I'd hope that my family and friends and strangers on the Internet would push me to acknowledge the moral choice I was facing and make the choice that helped others instead of maximizing my own narrow self-interest.
Hmm, I think you don't believe in leadership? Even warlords in the ancient times know they have to risk losing their lives fighting when they recruit an army for themselves.
We Chinese call the people Keyboard Men who ask people to do all kinds of things, behind their keyboards.
I agree with you that the Uber situation is far from the civil rights era, but I wanted to pick an example of regular people (almost certainly in a much worse situation than OP) making a sacrifice that impacted their finances and quality of life. Those people had family members depending them too; the difference is they had a cause they cared enough about to make sacrifices. I believe that people should either be willing to make sacrifices for things they care about, or admit that they don't care enough. OP was instead treating the suggestion that people make a sacrifice as a prima facie absurd suggestion, and I find that troubling.
How about next time you have a problem with the way a company does business, you just don't use that company's services? Or is that not enough for you? You have to march around HN and tell everyone else what they should be doing in order to appease you?
And you're correct, deleting my Uber account (as I've done) is not enough for me, because I am only one person and unless I work together with other people I do not have the resources necessary to cause Uber to change anything. It is only through collective action that an $xx,000,000,000 company can be forced to change anything, and that requires communication. I'm not telling other people what they should do to appease me, I'm asking other people to use their position of power to help those with less power, such as women who are software engineers and Uber drivers.
The thing is, everyone in the world has ties to other people and responsibilities, and they have to decide how to weight these different factors. It seems very clear that Uber is systematically mistreating and exploiting the people in its path. Software engineers as a group are in the best position to convince the company to change course, or to punish it if it does not change course. They have far, far more leverage per person than individual drivers or Uber customers, and they also are risking relatively little; they can reliably expect to find another job that pays six figures in a manner of months, right? I believe that people with that level of economic bargaining power and security are morally obligated to use that power for the benefit of others.
If the original poster had said "I don't want to risk leaving my family hungry," that's one thing. Instead they said they couldn't be expected to make any sacrifice unless someone else went to the trouble of getting them a better offer. The idea that the poster has no moral obligation to take action for the good of others unless it will also benefit them is absurd and repugnant to me. If the poster wants to admit they are not bothered by the allegations against Uber or don't care very much, then I will appreciate the honesty, but software engineers (in general) are not in a good position to blame morally suspect positions on necessity or survival.