‘Silicon Valley,’ Darker Than Ever, Captures the Bleak Mood of Tech
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
mchurch's quote that "Silicon Valley is just Wall St for people who can't get up early" has always made me laugh. But I've also always said that, at least the guys at Goldman are authentic, they know and we know that they are motivated almost entirely by money, and they don't pretend otherwise. It really rubs me the wrong way that both Google the company and the "Googlers" that make up its workforce to this day want to maintain this image that somehow they are good people trying to "make the world a better place when" it's abundantly clear that the overriding concern is the value of the sacred GSU (Google restricted stock unit). I totally agree with the NYTimes that if anything, the HBO show is not nearly harsh enough.
On the other, a well paying job so you can feed yourself etc is a social good.
We all need food, clothing and shelter. The best way to get that is a job. Jobs at Google tend to pay well.
I'm famously poor.
It also affirms that adequate earned income is a healthy, positive thing.
We do this weird thing where feeding others as an act of charity is clearly a good thing, but somehow feeding ourselves is not.
I think there are problems with that idea.
It's all good. But I happen to be very serious about the importance of an earned income as a social good. I think we need more of that.
Cheers.
It's always odd to me how people think it's only a social good if you are feeding and clothing someone else, not yourself.
Not being on the street just isn't really enough to write off all other ethical considerations though. Some might wish to set a slightly higher bar than that for people who are being compensated as well as people in software are in 2019 (I say this as someone working in software in 2019).
You say that what you needed most was finding an earned income. Based off this statement, I have a few questions:
- Some cities are going into homeless camps and handing out housing vouchers. Their argument is that once you get people off the streets and into a domicile, many issues tend to resolve themselves, allowing the formerly-homeless to work toward stability. If you were given the opportunity to receive a housing voucher, would it have helped you get to where you are today?
- To my knowledge, one hurdle the homeless must overcome when finding a job is what address to put down on a job application. Did this hurdle pose a challenge for you when trying to find a job? (An idea I just came up with: providing the homeless with a free P.O. box to allow them to still receive mail. Perhaps this program or one like it exists, but I've never heard of it before.)
- Many homeless live in cities where the job market is highly competitive. Imagine an employer provided short-term housing for the homeless but was not located in a city. (Example scenario: a factory in rural America.) Do you see any potential in this program?
Thank you!
> It's always odd to me how people think it's only a social good if you are feeding and clothing someone else, not yourself.
These people seem to have never learned some pretty ancient wisdom. One phrasing of it goes, "give a man a fish; feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish; feed him for a lifetime." Skills (however simple or complex) pay the bills.
I doubt it.
I was offered housing on more than one occasion. Sometimes, it was a friend sincerely trying to help but it was very far away (thousands of miles) and substandard. I have health issues. I need my housing to not be making me sicker than I already am.
Sometimes, it was in exchange for sleeping with them. This was a non starter for various reasons.
A home is more than a roof over your head. It means you belong, you have some kind of security and so forth. Some homeless people float from dive hotel to dive hotel and are not literally out in the street. It's still a huge hardship to live that way.
I have researched housing policy and homelessness. We have some serious housing supply issues. I'm trying to figure out how to write about that on a blog called Project: SRO. It's so far got an About page.
I'm not up for trying to outline our complicated housing supply issues in an HN post. I think I need an entire website for that and I'm struggling with where to start that explanation.
Re addresses. I always (technically) had a mailing address while homeless and usually had access to mail service. I would like to see more mailing address services for the homeless, plus more free phones and some kind of storage locker service. People sometimes have job interviews and don't know where to stash their backpack.
I provide various informational resources in the form of a group of websites. This includes talking about making money online.
A lot of homeless people have personal handicaps and a regular job may be a poor fit. I began doing freelance work while homeless as one piece of the puzzle for resolving my own issues. I think that's a better option for some people.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
> Bill Gates was the world’s greatest philanthropist, and you’d have been laughed out of town for suggesting — as presidential candidates and billionaires themselves now routinely do — that people as rich as him should not even be allowed to exist.
I've been doing that on this board for over 8 years and have been down-voted out of town almost every time.
It's easy to confuse the two groups and think a distinction doesn't exist.
It's not at all complicated to get smart idealistic people who fuck up whether in Wall St or SV, to doubt themselves, get defensive and then cynical. There are lots of idealists who have turned cynical over their careers. And it's very beneficial for all kinds of parties, to strip that idealism away and just harvest the smarts using guilt and shame, fear and doubt.
And it works very well on those who aren't clear about their Values and Needs, or those who don't have experience with failure.
Yet even after all that, you will find two different groups. Why? Because there will always be idealists who don't turn cynics, even after fucking up.
There is nothing straight forward about recovering from fuckups. For some it takes time to see their mistakes. Some are able to openly process or talk about their mistakes (which society loves to then exploit or pass judgement on). And others get highly defensive and come across or get painted as oblivious to their mistakes. These different routes add to the impression of hypocrisy (that everyone likes to take a dig at and laugh about).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_income_hypothesis
I'm all for whistle-blowers of course, but these companies aren't breaking the law, and that's the core problem.
If my workplace tomorrow decided to implement things I ethically disagree with, I cannot in good faith say that I would quit. It's easy to say stuff like that, but when you have a mortgage, have family that depend on you, a home you've put tons of work into, hobbies you love... I mean you can call me a sellout if you want, and I couldn't really disagree, but why is that burden on me? To relieve the politicians of the awful work involved in doing their job?
My job is to write code. Their job is to write law. Why must I quit mine and jeopardize my livelihood so they can eschew theirs?
As for quitting... if you were a factory worker in a one-company town, you'd be in a worse spot. But I hear that software engineers are in demand these days. And if you're in somewhere like the Bay Area, there are many options available to you.
For that matter, there may be many options available to you even within your own company. You may not be able in good conscience to work on that project, but can you transfer teams? And, if you're feeling that it might be useful, tell them why.
On the other hand, that leaves such a team with nobody left working on it that has a functioning conscience. That's not ideal, either. But that comes down to your judgment about whether you can actually change the course of the team. If you can't, what's the point in staying?
I have two grandfathers, one found a way to evade the Nazis and one was a Nazi. The former always said they were uncultured and barbaric, without humanist values. The latter said all he did was following orders and the law, and they built streets after all.
In my eyes the ahistorical period is over, and in hindsight it never matters how convincing your excuse is, when your grandchildren ask you what you did when X happend. If you can change culture for the better, do it.
The Banality of Systemic Evil: https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/the-banalit...
It's sad that thoughts such as yours and mine get downvoted. Even an Upton Sinclair quote that no one can honestly disagree with gets downvoted, all because we're touching on people's comfy lives and self-esteem.
And that's not to say I wouldn't be finding a new job, but again, I wouldn't have to find a job, nor would my boss be pressuring me to do this sort of unethical stuff, if the unethical stuff was simply made illegal. Settles the matter entirely. Will there be bad actors skirting those regulations? Of course, there always are, but laws don't stop 100% of bad activity and that's never stopped us from trying.
Because you are always responsible for your own actions. You may face difficult choices and unwanted consequences, but you can't abdicate your responsibility for your actions.
Note, I'm not suggesting that in the particular scenario you described that there is an obvious right or wrong action, just that you have to accept the consequences of the whatever you choose to do.
Those regulations will exist when there is less political friction required to enact them. When workers unionize, they take the first step into "de facto" practice.
especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized. "a de facto state of war"
Architects don't need to consider the ethics of designing buildings up to structural code, because regulations (building codes) demand it. They don't have to worry about their bosses pushing them to design cheaper buildings that don't meet those standards, because the bosses know they will never be approved for use by their customer. Sure, an architect could enforce this himself or herself, but why should they? We as a society have already decided that we want buildings that are safe to occupy, and have mandated standards accordingly. It's now a LOT less profitable to make cheap buildings that won't meet code, because if the buildings can't be occupied after, then the builder doesn't get their money.
This is not to say building codes are never skirted, but it's a lot rarer than, for example, a Silicon Valley firm trampling privacy which is completely expected at this point, despite wide and vocal opposition.
I don't really understand your architectural example though. The presence or absence of regulations doesn't change the fact that an architect should follow an ethical course of action and design a safe building. Regulations or standards may help to be more successful at that goal but they don't add or remove the responsibility.
You can try to change things from within or report the issue to a legal authority if the situation is also a legal problem, or leave and take action from outside if appropriate. You have choices, they may not be comfortable choices, but they are there.
You'll always have the option to behave unethically. And more regulations make it easier -- you can use the fact that you're following regulations to justify your unethical behavior.
"We were just following orders".
You are right that regulation play a very important part into this, but this should not be a excuse to releave ourselves from the burden that in the end we are responsible for everything we do, even under orders, under a chain of command or whatever.
Proper regulation is a good goal, but in the meantime, making a ethical stand in what we do, is very important, because the moral corruption can spread faster than the regulation, and in the end, there will be no individual ethical behavior nor proper regulation.
People should not just try to quit their jobs just because they work in a big company (maybe) doing shady stuff, because you may be in a job that actually create something good, or even if thats not the case, you can try to move to another product or team..
But if you are working in a core part that are doing unethical things, i guess trying to hide behind the company can work like a placebo for your guilty, but i bet it wont work after a short period of time.
This to me is very like when people criticize capitalism and are countered with "yet you participate in capitalism, curious!" as though that's a point. Of course I participate in it. I don't have a fucking choice. If I want to take my ethical stance that capitalism is a dehumanizing and oppressive system, how am I to do that? Go live in the fucking woods?
So maybe I have to stay at my job, even if I fundamentally disagree with it, because again, the other choices are horrific. As I said to another commenter, I'd love to hear one of you guys debating whether to continue working at Facebook on their news team, or whatever, if you have a child with chronic illness. Or maybe your wife is in treatment for depression. Hell, maybe YOU are.
I'm not saying people shouldn't do their best to act ethically. I'm saying that painting anyone who can't make those kinds of ethical stances as a complicit bastard is the worst kind of horseshit, and putting the burden of the ethics of their employers on them is ridiculous. Just because a shitty company can find enough people who can't afford to say no to develop their unethical software doesn't mean those people are then bad, especially when, again, the alternative solution is put pen to paper and make what they're doing ILLEGAL. With no room for interpretation.
Thats why in a part of my former comment i've addressed other options, like moving to other products that actually create something good..
But anyway the important part is to remain conscious about this, even if you cant get out of the situation. Because the uneasy feeling might help you to recognize a good oportunity to change your situation.
The Nazism soldiers example shows cinism, like they knew what they were doing, they choose individually to do it, and when confronted they just blamed hierarchy. Somehow in the process they have lost their 'soul'.
Its very specific, and its not very much relatable to every case, but more like a cautionary tale, that we need to be aware of this, and keep or conciousness and our individual will as part of the whole.
What each one of us do matters in the whole, and we should be awake in every order we are executing when we are in a system where we need to follow orders.
This is ONLY a legit excuse for people who are genuinely struggling to survive. i.e. poor people.
Otherwise why would you choose to continue at an unethical company? Because switching to an ethical company almost always means a lower salary. In other words profit beats ethics. So how are you any different from the company itself? How are you not complicit?
Here's a good read: The Banality of Systemic Evil https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/the-banalit...
It's maybe gauche to say out loud "I'm just here for a paycheck," but the reality is that's usually more or less the truth.
Grandstanding tends to come at a rather high personal cost.
If you mean it enough to pay the cost, whether it is lower income working for an ethical company, or jail time for civil disobedience, then one is most certainly NOT grandstanding.
> Sometimes, poor people are poor because they have ethics.
Agreed. But that is the nature of ethics: Doing the right thing vs doing the selfish thing. You simply cannot claim to be an ethical person when you choose the latter over the former. You cannot claim to be an ethical person when you claim, as FussyZeus does in his comments, that it's someone else's problem, that you are only doing your job.
I have repeatedly pointed out how one is meant to weigh their personal ethics against obligations that are hardly selfish. No one has yet answered. If your child is in chemotherapy and their lives are dependent on your health insurance, is that selfish? You know even just changing jobs will mean a lapse in coverage, usually between 1 and 6 months. Do you think your child's cancer gives a shit about your ethics?
I'm not arguing that employees should never take a stand. Absolutely do, if you're able. I'm saying dismissing entirely that anyone who doesn't is a lackey of a system they're refusing to question is ridiculous and insulting, and I'm pointing out that if such behaviors were regulated against, there would be NO NEED for the employees to take a stand on it, because it would be a settled matter.
No one has yet deigned to explain why we can't have regulations for things like user privacy, the handling of user data, consequences for companies losing/misusing/exposing user data, or any one of the dozens of other issues that are in sore need of word-on-paper laws that are far from partisan issues, but are generally agreed on, except of course for Facebook, Twitter, and the rest who's business models will more or less implode when they can no longer do business unethically.
But no, by all means, blame the fucking engineers. It's obviously their fault, not the fact that reality isn't black and white, the choices aren't always easy, but God forbid we put some human context in this instead of repeatedly insisting that there's no way we'd be the baddies, because nobody ever got stuck between a rock and a hard place before, nobody ever stole an apple because they were starving, no one ever had to take a high interest loan to buy FOOD before.
I tell ya it's threads like this that remind me just how sheltered a lot of tech workers are. I'm glad things have always apparently been sunshine and rainbows for you, some of us weren't so lucky.
I'm all for regulations. I was taking issue with you putting all the burden on law rather than personal responsibility and morality.
Even in cases of survival, there are lines. Would you buy a kidney to save your child from a poor person in China or India who's selling it to pay their rent or their daughter's dowery, who's being exploited by the middleman who's taking most of what you pay?
I agree there are often conflicting moral pulls that must be weighed. But my overall point is that that is not what usually is happening. People in SV can afford to have less income; they'd just not be as comfy or materialistically bountiful. We don't need to have cars if we live in an urban location; but saving 60 minutes on one's commute and not having to sit next to strangers is more important than the environment or rejecting the ethics of the company that is paying you the salary that affords you the car.
> nobody ever stole an apple because they were starving
I actually have no ethical issue with this. I believe, frankly, the current system is incredibly unjust.
> I'm glad things have always apparently been sunshine and rainbows for you, some of us weren't so lucky.
That's exactly my point. People who's sunshine and rainbows come courtesy of high SV salaries from companies that profit off of unethical behavior and unethical system dynamics (e.g. Google and Facebook profiting off advertising and privacy violation) are precisely the people I'm talking about.
BTW, I gave up a my high 6-figure salary 7 years ago and now work with underserved children and minimum wage, am writing about social justice issues, and am working on tech-based educational tools to wake people up to the harmful system dynamics they contribute to.