I Don't Think I Can Stay in Tech
coyotetracks.org
coyotetracks.org
I sure have been thinking a lot about this recently as Gaza was the ultimate manifestation of where this can go. I actually think there's a movement to bring that type of violence to places like the US. Flock and fascism are steps in that direction imo.
The underlying problem is that power and wealth causes people to believe themselves above others to a degree proportional to how much more power and wealth they have relative to those considered below them.
Unfortunately, we've seen unprecedented concentration of wealth occur, so it should come as no surprise that those who are running things exhibit very little humanity towards others.
"Quite a bit of salary" like
I'm sure that some of the people I work with at food banks are homophobic because they hold a particularly conservative version of their faith. I'm also sure that they aren't directly working with the government to cause material harm to marginalized people, which I cannot say about my current employer.
Similarly I have no doubt the Food Banks have people who hold such views. But it doesn't matter if they are still willing to give food even to homeless, possibly even homeless people who are homosexual (statistically homosexual people are more likely to be in poverty or homeless).
It's still a net positive action if they are giving food to those they deem as against their beliefs. Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity.
> Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity.
At the same time, a lot of Christians find great satisfaction in the idea that their enemies will be damned to an eternity of suffering. Not the majority of Christians, but I'd be very surprised if it's less than 10%.
Actions often speak louder than words.
To give a fictional yet IMO realistic example, what if the food bank is specifically created by investors to squash locally-owned businesses in very poor neighborhoods, only to then be closed down once everyone has to buy everything externally again? Those food banks would be a net negative action if they succeeded.
This is not meant as a critique of real food banks, it's just meant to show that the context must be taken into account to judge the "net effect" of any action.
‘You can use Omarchy without caring about DHH’s politics,’ explained one of my colleagues. And he’s kind of right. Death of the author – that sort of thing. But using it also lends credibility to the maker, who can point at their project’s popularity as an indirect sign of vindication of their ideology. Hence, as I see it, the only morally right choice is not to use it.
Regarding the conclusion, I wouldn’t leave. I see it as my duty to push back, even if the effect is woefully modest. We need to start reminding each other again that, no, this isn’t okay. In the office and online.
> But my personal lines definitely extend to don’t give money to people who enable fascism and don’t create value for them, either.
When you architect your industry around "number goes up" as the number one priority that everybody agrees on, and then add multiple layers of abstraction separating capital from labor, you end up with the Ouroboros-style arrangement we have today. The head forgets that it is the tail, and vice-versa.
I think we used to (in, idk, the era of the Roosevelts) have a very different leadership class, with competing interests that were more complicated than "number go up", even in the corporate class.
Since the Kennedy assassination(s!) in the US, I don't think we've had a single leader (corporate or political) who has publicly and sincerely questioned that narrative. At this point we struggle to imagine a civilization with alternative priorities, but history is littered with examples.
You simply cannot use any technology at all in general while abiding by this ideology though. Just the keystrokes you used to write this already were paid for by, and continue to be used to enable, countless people to do their "fascism" as you call it.
No they don't, at least not anymore (if they ever really did.) They believe government shouldn't regulate business and shouldn't provide social welfare or invest in scientific research that doesn't align with their political ideology, but they absolutely believe in having a trillion dollar military industrial complex.
It comes down to culture and society. A democratically elected government should ideally be there to represent the interests of the masses as a way to counteract the inevitable power of the wealthy elite. But when those same wealthy elite spend decades and billions of dollars to brainwash the masses by owning all the media companies and influencing school curriculums and so on, I don't see how the masses stand a chance over the long term.
That's how billionaires became so much richer under Trump, while the rest of the country goes to shit. And that's a common symptom of fascism: a merging of the State's and corporate interests.
When was that supposed to have happened?
TL;DR A global cabal of pedophiles runs the world
Hitler was sponsored by the industrialists of its nation. So was Mussolini. So is Putin. So is Trump.
"Capitalism is incompatible with democracy" is the one lesson I hope people finally learn by the end of this century.
I want nothing to do with fascists, and with programmer jobs as thin on the ground as they are, I would be forced to take whatever. That's not a coin flip I feel like making. No amount of money can compensate you for severe moral injury.
So, I hedge my bets and make contingency plans.
However, if you don't like the creator of Brave or Ladybird, and you don't believe Google or Mozilla can be trusted to make a browser that respects privacy, giving up is just ceding to those forces.
Like, make a browser. Make it with people who do share your values. That's exactly what Andreas King and the Brave people did. That's what DHH is doing.
If they're right about anything, the "anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics'" groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values.
If you like Harry Potter, you have to deal with JK Rowling. There's no way around it. You have to reconcile that with your morals. You don't get to demand that she supports the groups you want her to support in order for you to enjoy her content guilt-free.
So your options are, don't use those browsers, or make your own. You have that ability.
And yes, you, singular you, cannot make all the software. But you can make something and you can find others with your values and eventually you can build a network and that network can build all the software. With values that you can support.
* I know I talk a lot about browsers, but that's just the example. This is applicable to everything.
Strange because that’s exactly what the anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics' groups in the government demand.
I don't need to associate with people I don't like or find distasteful. I don't need to join hands with the Tankies. I don't need to read JK Rowling's works. I get to choose.
> If they're right about anything, the "anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics'" groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values.
I don't associate that claim with these groups, if anything they seem to be saying the opposite.
Conservatives will come out to say that you can't force JK Rowling to be pro (or even neutral) on the trans issue.
Now, they'll also say that certain people shouldn't be allowed to create. Or at the very least create based on certain properties. Which is admittedly almost a "same result, different mechanism" issue.
But they will claim to allow the market decide (aka "go woke, go broke").
And the ultimate form of cancel culture, conservatives (including the neo-liberal variety) will straight up murder you if you're Muslim and live in the Middle East.
None of that is free market.
But this is getting rather forest for the trees.
End point is: If you don't like who is making your software, make your own. Giving up is just letting them win.
And I didn't say it would be easy, just possible.
I think that's some of the disconnect for some people. They think that simply because a thing is possible, it should be easy.
"Come out and say" something completely uncontroversial and universally accepted?
The idea that JK Rowling could be "forced" on this is a weird one. I haven't read a ton of her critics but I've never even encountered the idea of forcing her to do that.
How would that even be possible? So strange. The conservative idea of using government force to silence people could "force her, but the critics of JK Rowling only want to flex their freedom of association, not force her.
It's a very straightforward reconciliation given her women's rights advocacy. Massive respect to her for taking a stand against the progressive-styled misogyny that's arisen in recent years.
But the tech people have been programmed for obedience and followed their industry leaders through wokeness and now protofascism without thinking.
Tech people are weak and just act as repeaters, so I guess the leaders know what they are doing and the useful idiots will carry it out, even if they live under a bridge in 5 years.
I wish China could host an HN clone so we could have free discussions.
Taking a political litmus test to people is about divisive politics, not technology.
I'd flag this if my low karma account would let me.