Hacker News Reader

Comment by simias | Hacker News Reader

This line of questioning on Startup News is quite amusing to me, I must say. How many of us can really pretend to make society a better place?

View on HN

All who live in silicon Valley of course. You seem to have forgotten that "making world a better place" is a mantra repeated across the entire IT. I presume if Facebook employees actively think that, so can RIAA lawyers

At least some of us don't try to actively make it harder/worse. So that's a plus.

I'm convinced the companies considered as 'evil' now didn't think they would at first either. Something something unintended consequences.

I mean Reddit; bastion of free speech or platform for hate speech? (they cracked down on that over the years) Dropbox; File synchronization and sharing platform or child porn exchange? Airbnb; Great way to find an affordable place to stay and / or rent out unused room, or platform for dodgy landlords that scam people with pretty pictures? Coinbase: Platform for libertarian wet dream crypto exchange, or platform for laundering your ill-gotten gains?

Just to name a few YC examples. Everything can be used for bad things and make the world a worse place, and they don't always do the right thing.

But who goes into being an RIAA lawyer position thinking it’s going to be good at first? You have to have believed in the RIAA’s stance from the get-go because it hasn’t really changed.

Or you have to be a morally and professionally substandard lawyer who cannot find a better job.

They’re rent-seeking, and probably view themselves as necessary redistributors of wealth, like landlords, but for copyright enforcement and expansion instead of housing.

I was at the Grammy’s one year and at the industry lunch the day before, I wound up at a table with a bunch of lawyers for the labels and the RIAA. It was an interesting position for me to be in, as someone who has been quite critical vocally of their positions and tactics since I was a teenager.

Anyway, everyone was cordial and professional and we didn’t really get into debate too much — and I was clearly the odd woman out, not a lawyer or in agreement with their position — but I walked away from the lunch with the belief that at least most of them absolutely believe they are fighting against what they see as abuse against copyright and ownership and that they see themselves as protectors of the industry, and to a lesser extent, artists. Now, I disagree that their tactics really succeed and would argue that ignoring the push of technology has hurt the music industry and especially artists, but I also accept that it is valid for people to have a completely different view from me. And it’s important to be exposed to that on occasion.

I’ll also say, as I was waiting for my Uber to take me to my next meeting, I saw valet bringing out $200,000 cars for many of the people I had politely been debating with earlier. I’m sure the money doesn’t hurt.

Not unlike my friends who work for tech giants that many of us find abhorrent but get $400,000 in stock grants a year.

Yep. You’ll often find there is nuance to these debates and people will justify their side by blowing the upsides out of proportion and minimizing the downsides.

Some probably think they are "protecting content creators" or some bs

> Everything can be used for bad things and make the world a worse place

Right, but the RIAA aren’t just making new abusable things, they’re actively abusing existent ones.

These are good questions /examples, except Coinbase? I'm sure there's something else that could be applied, but doesn't seem it's a place to launder money. They were the first to supply IRS/Treasury Department with detailed records of every customer transaction.

Having reddit crack down on hate speech makes it a corporate shill-chamber/chicomm focal point, along with an anti-1A and against American-rights. The evil is always there with these companies brother.

I mean, while it is the nominal purpose of the site, it's not like all of us here actually work in startups.

Personally, I do programming for psych research students & faculty at an undergrad institution.

It's not like working at a startup—or having money as your first, last, and only moral compass—is a prerequisite to post here.

Not everyone here is directly involved in the startup culture and yes, technology and disruption can get shady. But "at least I'm not a lawyer" is a low, low bar to clear.

> But "at least I'm not a lawyer" is a low, low bar to clear.

A lot of people wouldn't be able to get any justice at all if it weren't for lawyers. Lawyers work for the ACLU and EFF too you know.

I work on managed databases. I actually do think that is a positive effect on the world, like many other obscure but important pieces of infrastructure.

Eh, I don't think that's fair. Lots of people here make society a better place, as do the companies and organisations they work for/contribute to.

Sure maybe you could argue that Facebook and Google don't make the world a better place. Maybe a bunch of other FAANG companies.

But not everyone here works for one of those. I don't, and I'd say my work probably improves society in a certain sense (depending on whether web development/UX design/usability work does that).

I am not, but I am not fucking it up for others.

Well anyone who voluntarily enters into a work for hire arrangement is making society a better place. The employer wouldn't have done it unless they were benefitting and likewise for the employee. What is important is doing something people want.

This is the Just World Fallacy. It's not necessarily true that spending money benefits society. You can spend money to harm society, with or without intention.

That is definitely not the case. There are plenty of employers making things worse. One of my first jobs was for a telephone fundraising outfit. We'd cold-call people, manipulate and like to them, so they'd donate money for our charity of the week, and keep 85% of it.

Making society better requires actually making society better. You have to weigh the total societal positives against the total societal negatives.

OK let me qualify my answer. Voluntary financial arrangements are beneficial to society that do not harm others. The government in capitalistic systems enforces the rule that you can't harm one another arbitrarily. So an assassination contract would be illegal. Also, defrauding people with cold calls of their money is illegal. In short, LEGAL voluntary arrangements in a free market are beneficial.

That's progress, but you haven't accounted for negative externalities or the varying shades of "voluntary" that exist. Both of which occur in pretty much any job people take these days.

An assassin is a work for a hire arrangement.

And this is just one (extreme) instance of “person A pays person B to destroy person C's value, for net harm”. Imo, the only failing of capitalism is that one can profit by destroying other people's wealth (though this is probably splitting hairs, given how varied the ills that come from that).

Everybody has their price. For some people, it's low enough that they'll actually do the evil things and not lose sleep over it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com