I am wondering: Some engineers must have worked on this type of integration. Heck, some of them are probably also reading along here.
What kind of narrative is being build around the feature to justify its implementation?
What kind of narrative is being build around the feature to justify its implementation?
Knowing how to program is not correlated to someone’s ethics or capacity for empathy. A desire to shit on users for profit is not exclusive to ad executives.
I do not believe that some people mean mal intend, and so my original question was in which framework this would no be mal intend.
(My heart are with the anti nuclear protestors who's work is being reinterpreted to have ruined the earth these years, despite them doing what they believe was right)
Microsoft has been criticised (and even sued) for these practices for years. At a certain point you have to accept they are doing it on purpose. Anyone inside the company who decides on or implements these features and is genuinely surprised by the backlash is either unbelievably naive or unbearably incompetent. It’s been going on for too long for plausible deniability.
But that also is proof for the abstract! By having this image, MS preselects on engineers with lower ethical standards.
Thus it’s no longer abstract but specific to Microsoft, which is my point. In general we shouldn’t assume malice right of the bat. But the situation changes when we’re talking specifically about an entity with a history of being malicious (however we define that for each case).
> A person familiar with the kerfuffle who has visibility into the Windows giant, though who did not want to be identified, told us it appears that "if a user chose continuous import in the Edge first run experience on some other device, this state may be syncing incorrectly across their devices. This is not the intended feature experience." We're assured that Microsoft is addressing it for the next Edge Stable release.
I dunno, what kind of narrative are Googlers or Meta employees using to justify building an ad tracking and surveillance dragnet for the whole world, including one that emotionally manipulates youngsters into depression and slef loathe?
Probably making enough money to be able to afford not to think about ethics. Everyone has their price, especially those with no wealth to their name.
Maybe not with conviction, but they can't tell the world with a straight face they don't know what their masters are doing with their tech.
The excuse "I'm just moving buffers around as I'm told" doesn't hold up, same how "I'm just a low level foot soldier following orders " didn't hold up at Nuremberg.
Building housing for the poor does damage to the environment but it also provides a public good, the poor now have housing.
I am not trying to qualify each of these individual narratives. People do that themselves.
My initial questions was just on the enumeration of narratives that would leave the implementor on the morally right side.
Just like with every second high-tech company that pays their devs from the ad, tracking, invasive profiling, personal data aggregation and all other blatantly anti-person techs that fuels much of their business. Don't have to go far for examples.
Step 2 - Define target goals for this KPI for each quarter
Step 3 - Create user stories for features and changes to meet those goals
Step 4 - Implement stories, release, and measure KPI increases
Step 5 - Give presentation to <next level up in the org> showing the successful KPI line go up
The mentality at MS is for everything to be about promoting their SaaS divisions to the point where there is no longer an independent business unit selling windows, and bundling them with an nearly impossible opt out is an proven strategy for selling value add services that people might either not need or prefer to get from 3rd parties if asked to explicitly opt in to the vendors version of that service.
I'd just protest a bit with an email for upper management just in case upper management tried to shift the blame to me.