Hacker News Reader

Comment by simion314 | Hacker News Reader

>It sets a scary precedent. They in effect hold disproportionate power and can affect whole sectors of the economy to force whatever they want done

Sweden seems to have low regulation, no minimum wages so is a perfect place for an american company to take advantage, unless the peasants use their rights to strike then the billionaires are demanding regulations. As software developers we should do the same when we are asked to take part on building harfull shit, as an individual we have no power, if I refuse someone else will be paid to do it but as a union we could do some good and reduce the harm int he world.

Tesla is free to use other companies or methods to deliver, create their own delivery companies from scratch , deliver the cars with their rockets. I do not think they can cut off the power but there could be problems finding people fixing their electrical issues if they appear.

View on HN

> Tesla is free to use other companies or methods to deliver, create their own delivery companies from scratch , deliver the cars with their rockets. I do not think they can cut off the power but there could be problems finding people fixing their electrical issues if they appear.

In theory, but it's not unprecedented for payment providers to refuse to process payments so they'd not be able to pay people to even get started (if they went that way)

> As software developers we should do the same when we are asked to take part on building harfull shit, as an individual we have no power, if I refuse someone else will be paid to do it but as a union we could do some good

Who gets to decide what is harmful and what is not?

Me? You?

Your proposal won't go anywhere because you won't agree with others on what is harmful and what is not.

>Your proposal won't go anywhere because you won't agree with others on what is harmful and what is not.

Maybe in some groups we can achieve a consensus. Say 80% of developers at a company think that the new feature of addicting kids on some game mechanic is harmful?

I am not referring to the stupid culture war in USA, so when I suggest this I am not attacking your political opinions.

> Say 80% of developers at a company think that the new feature of addicting kids on some game mechanic is harmful?

Who cares? The company will just get someone from the other 20% to develop it. Or contract it out.

What is your proposal for stopping a company from developing something you think is harmful? You can't very well complain that other developers have to agree with your opinions[1], after all.

[1] Whether something is harmful or not is simply your opinion. If that something is a fact, then there's probably a law against it, so there's no need to prevent other developers from developing it.

>Whether something is harmful or not is simply your opinion. If that something is a fact, then there's probably a law against it, so there's no need to prevent other developers from developing it.

Cigarettes are harmful and are legal.

It is not an easy as you think, I worked at a small company in a emote team, there was proposed that we all need to install spying software on our computers so we can be better monitored. Everyone in the team refused and the bad stuff did not happen, we were not replaced with a new team. But if it was only one guy he could be replace but good luck replacing 80% of your developers like they are are some pre-made lego bricks you can swap out.

You might be right, maybe developers should instead work on proposing legislation for banning harmful stuff and keep unions focused on work conditions.

> Cigarettes are harmful and are legal.

> I worked at a small company in a emote team, there was proposed that we all need to install spying software on our computers so we can be better monitored. Everyone in the team refused and the bad stuff did not happen, we were not replaced with a new team.

Isn't that different to what you asked for? The harmful stuff in this story was harmful to the workers. Unions protect workers.

You're asking that employees must form a union to protect consumers. Have you ever seen that happen? Unions are not primarily consumer-protection groups.

Once again, I reiterate that you are going to have trouble getting a union (or a bunch of them) all agreeing that their workers would strike if any worker is ever employed producing cigarettes (the example you gave).

The reason this is not going to happen, is because you aren't going to get enough developers to agree with your opinion on what is harmful and what is not.

> You might be right, maybe developers should instead work on proposing legislation for banning harmful stuff and keep unions focused on work conditions.

Give me just one single example that you think should be enshrined in law and currently isn't, and I'll show you how unworkable your proposal is.

Just one.

That is an age old debate in unions, how to agree on what to fight for. It means that things have to get bad for many before unions organize on big new issues.

Feminist issues is a good example it has almost always been up to the women to fight for that, unions have been in the back seat on most of these issues until support was well above 50% in their ranks.

> That is an age old debate in unions, how to agree on what to fight for.

That's not what the poster I replied to was arguing - they were arguing for developers to all agree not to develop harmful (to the consumer) products.

That is not what unions do. Unions are not known for acting in the customers best interest. They are a workers collective, not a consumer advocacy group.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com