[myaso]

Great, these who want to build these things will simply hire people who don't subscribe to this oath ... And now the organization will be populated by a whole tribe of people who have no qualms about doing this -- does that sound like something that will make things better?

Aside: the book looked interesting. Skimmed it, beautiful typesetting, not gratuitously mathematical, looked readable -- I may be wrong, but it's just a exercise of adding awareness of it's existence to me.

[amelius]

> Great, these who want to build these things will simply hire people who don't subscribe to this oath ...

How many doctors are willing to give up their title to do unethical stuff?

An ethical code will change people's perception, and that's a big thing. It will morph the perception of Google and Facebook from cool tech companies into dark places where no decent people want to work; unless of course these companies are willing to change. And there will be a huge effect on politics, other businesses, and media.

[myaso]

Um, how are they supposed to make money if they don't track you to a certain extent? Do they have flaws? Yes -- it's not funny what kind of things you can target for based AdWords, their internal staff probably aren't creative enough to think up ways in which their tools can be used to inflict misery. Software engineers aren't soldiers, doctors, or civil servants what kind of ethical code do you expect? How will people be held accountable to it? What will happen to these who make transgressions?

[randcraw]

And how are cigarette companies going to make money if they are hindered in addicting you and giving you cancer? Legally of course.

Software engineers are surrogates for ALL jobs because software is used everywhere. When we serve medicine, we should be obliged to take the Hippocratic oath. When we serve the military or intel agencies (with a security clearance), we ARE obliged to take an formal oath of secrecy. IMHO, many other S/W roles bear no less responsibility.

I think it's time that we software infrastructuralists take our role behind the scenes as seriously as those on the front lines do.

[myaso]

Really? As a former smoker I don't place cigarettes and software in even remotely the same category. Ok -- question. How will this be enforced? Legal/Medical/Eng have licenses to practice you can lose these licenses. I don't need anybody's approval to write code, all the tools are available for free. You are naive if you think some feel good words on paper can make this work without some force backing these words.

[randcraw]

Let's say you're a programmer working for a tobacco company. Or for an alcohol distillery making only the most down-market 'ripple' products, inevitably consumed only by destitute inebriates dwelling in the dungeons of life. Do you really imagine that you bear no responsibility for the impact of your work when you enable the perpetuation of pain?

I've worked for several past employers whom I now disrespect (and whose leadership since earned them this disrepute), so this issue isn't merely hypothetical for me.

The principal question isn't about policing and punishment. It's about civic duty as an enlightened human being. Each of us either takes responsibility for our actions and does no harm, or we willingly do. On our part, that necessitates continuous diligence taking an interest in how the products of our work affects others.

Software has become an inescapable part of our society's technical and social infrastructure. Like scientists and engineers, S/W pros bear responsibility for how our work is used. And how it's abused. That's all I'm saying. Each of us has to work out the details for ourself, but dismissing them outright shirks that duty, and I believe, diminishes our humanity bit by bit.

[myaso]

People have the mistaken belief that the ideal possible world is actually one with no pain. The best solution possible with finite resources is maybe somewhere short of the the best you imagine -- to live is to suffer as they say.

You had shitty leaders I'm sorry about that, but maybe they were trying their best in a difficult situation -- it's probably not all fun choices. Or maybe they were just assholes -- updated.

I do not disagree with you on the "why" -- as Grove said I want to know how? You assume that each person can be trusted to figure this out for themselves -- maybe some people can be, but if you look at the entire population you will end with a distribution where more and more force will need to be used to coerce the fringe elements into compliance -- these fringes can destabilize the entire equilibrium since it might snow ball out of control as more and more people pile on seeing the benefits that it brings.

[matt4077]

> Great, these who want to build these things will simply hire people who don't subscribe to this oath ..

Morally, this argument quite obviously fails because it could be used to justify anything.

Practically, we see many professions where people of character have successfully resisted temptation: every government employee who is not corrupt comes to mind.

And even if they'll just hire the next guy/gal: If you say no to an offer, you were, by definition, their top choice. That next one down the ladder will therefore be slightly worse, making such businesses less profitable.

[myaso]

Top choice based on a search with finite resources, maybe there is a better top choice if they spend a bit more time -- one that is also more agreeable. I'll return with a question -- Is resisting temptation the path of least resistance? What are the odds that the personality trait you describe also overlaps with the person being in a position of enough authority to actually matter?