We, as software engineers (or working in the field), have the power to not implement these features when our employer asks us to do it.
Everyday we read about organisations using dark patterns in their (software) products and then we come to HN to complain about it.
How did these features get built? By whom?
Yes, I realise not everyone has the privilege to say "NO", but at least some of us can and should push back.
Realize that you're statment is a euphemism. What you really mean is we have the choice between implementing a dark pattern or finding another job and letting someone else implement it. Stated this way it's a lot easier to understand people's behavior.
s/implementing a dark pattern/performing any immoral or unethical act/g
You incorrectly reduced the available options.
Here are a couple more options:
- convince your peers and supervisors why using dark patterns is trash
- just don't implement dark patterns and rather focus on useful features and bugfixes
- be loud about your distain of such request for dark pattern implementation and tweet, blog, write about it.
- ...
(Though, realistically speaking, either one will probably get you fired, sooner or later.)
One could be tempted to think we're overpaid or have it too good as is, but we're basically lightning wizards making rocks think for us from sometimes thousands of miles away from where we physically are. When put that way it doesn't seem so farfetched to pay us a lot of money for our works.
The reality is that most of us think we're making the world a better place, when truthfully we're just trying to make a decent living, while making the unscrupulous shot callers rich. And that's the percentage that does actually want to make an honest living. Others will happily apply their knowledge to deceive and exploit, and then go on to make successful companies of their own. The circle of tech.
You don't, but, doctors and structural engineers do.
I was saying for years that a licensing proffeshional body, like the one other proffesions have, would improve things in our industry.
When was the last time a bridge fell down because someone boss bullied a structural engineer into suigning it off? They know you know that any engineer that agrees to do doggy shit is risking their licence, and it's not worth if for them.
This industry would improve significantly if it had a proffeshional body with teeth, and for that you need licensing like doctors and other proffeshions have.
Not necessarily that scenario, but this happens all the time. See the recent catastrophe in Turkey.
But I do agree that a tech license to uphold ethics makes sense. The problem is that the negative effects of tech aren't as clear-cut as from a bridge falling down. We still don't know what the long-term effects of social media are. Advertising rules all media, yet it's one of the most manipulative and harmful industries to have ever existed. These are not going anywhere because they have made many people very rich, and now these people have enormous influence over legislators and governments.
Speaking of legislators, they're hopelessly tech illiterate, and unprepared to regulate tech in any way. It took them decades to regulate industries that were literally killing people. How long do you think it will take for them to catch up to Big Tech?
I agree wholeheartedly. I would (and have) quit jobs where I was required to do things I considered unethical. Having to do that can suck and be a financial blow, but I think being able to keep my soul is worth it.
Software developers should have a professional code of ethics. Other professions have them, why not computer scientists, computer engineers, and software developers? There is the ACM/IEEE-CS Software Engineering Code, but I don't know any professionals outside academia that remain ACM members, IEEE membership might remain relevant for computer engineers, so I may well be wrong in that regard.
https://order-of-the-engineer.org/about-the-order/obligation...
That's not the call to action. The call to action is to refuse to participate in unethical behavior.
Management can always find someone willing to behave un-ethically if they look.
Regulation and criminal liability tends to be the only way to eliminate shady business practices.
When I realised that I had a choice, I resigned.
Again, I do realise that I'm privileged and not everyone can afford to simply resign, but a lot of us can and we, the ones who can, have no excuse.
We are the "new" crack dealers
2Pac - Changes
You gotta operate the easy way
- I made a G today
but you made it in a sleazy way
Sellin' crack to the kids
- I gotta get paid
Well hey, well, that's the way it isTrue, but that doesn't mean you should participate.
I think there are two things here -- refusing to participate in bad behavior is about maintaining your own humanity and holding true to your own ethical code. That it may not correct the company's behavior is irrelevant to this. The point is to not let the company corrupt you.
The other thing is how to correct the behavior of misbehaving companies. This is what you're addressing, and I think your conclusion is largely correct.
These are not mutually exclusive. Both are very important.