[johnfn]

It seems a bit too much to assert that every developer should be fully responsible for every moral slight their company commits. It is entirely possible to make a positive impact on the world from a large organization - in fact for some people it may be the most direct way that they can make such an impact.

Saying that he is morally bankrupt is like saying that you are morally bankrupt for continuing to live in the US because the current administration is a dumpster fire. It is financially profitable to live in the US; you basically cash in a 6 figure check (perhaps translate the metaphor by taking the monetary value that a significantly increased quality of life is worth to you) by living here rather than some other, lesser developed country with more morally aligned politics. Why not leave? I submit that the calculus that goes through your head to justify staying is roughly equivalent to the one that goes through his when he thinks about continuing to work at big tech. I also don’t think that either of you are wrong for having some justification.

[elliotto]

I don't think he's morally bankrupt. I am disagreeing with his attempt to handwave away a moral analysis of these organizations as 'cynicism'. I think these analyses are really important.

I don't live in the US. But if I did, and I was capable enough to be a successful software engineer, I would try to work for an organisation that was not implicated in abhorrent behaviour. If I was to work for one, I would not attempt to dismiss criticisms of it as cynicism.

[johnfn]

I feel you missed the gist of my argument, which is that anyone who lives in the US in 2025 does a similar sort of "morality calculus" as someone who works for Big Tech. To be honest, I think living in the US is worse.

[elliotto]

I think there are reasonable things to expect from someone's morality calculus. Leaving the country you were born in for moral reasons is a complex and life changing undertaking and beyond reasonable expectation for anyone not extremely politically motivated, let alone resourced enough to do so. Not working for a company whose moral values you disagree with (when you have an extremely lucrative skillset) is a smaller and more reasonable ask.

I'm also not really asking that people leave these roles - everyone has their own path to take. Just that they don't make posts dismissing criticism of these structures as silly cynicism. Or else they will have to contend with me writing a comment disgreeing with them.

[surajrmal]

Big tech companies are large. It's very possible to be working on things that are generally great for society while others in the company are not. Fighting from the inside for the behavior you want to see gives you an outsized influence on the outcomes you want to see.

[swiftcoder]

> Fighting from the inside for the behavior you want to see gives you an outsized influence on the outcomes you want to see

A lot of people say this, while collecting 6-7 figure cheques. I've not seen that much evidence that it is correct - certainly, I might as well have been pissing into the wind, for all the effect my influence had on the direction of various FAANG

[surajrmal]

If you are just a lower level IC, your influence is small. However if you can climb to higher level 7+ or enter management you will have a lot of control of roadmaps you own. If you're trying to influence organizations you're not in you're also going to have quite limited influence, but participating in dogfooding programs and filing bugs is still more influence than you would have externally.

I do agree that it's not easy even given the correct conditions.

[underdeserver]

That's a straw man.

The cynicism the post is talking about is the argument that your chain of command doesn't want to make good software but you do, not anything related to the use of said software.

[andersonpico]

oh that's a pretty nice summary of the points in the article, and while it seems to have sprung a nice discussion about interesting topics, the whole thread seems to have not understood the author as clearly

[coryrc]

Were individual Germans responsible for the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime? If they weren't there because they were resisting, then I say yes. And if we go on living our lives without resisting the current government -- especially if you work at Google, with your leader bowing down to Trump and doing his bidding -- then, yes, you are morally culpable. Most people are shitty, so it's not surprising so many are still going along with it. The engines of commerce are still going. The ports are not blockaded and the government buildings are not being burned. We aren't marching on Washington and liberating the buildings. We are culpable.

Democratic voters are culpable; their politicians are all about keeping the system going but tweaking it. No, the system is bad. A system that results in trump being elected a second time is prima facie evil and must be torn down. If you have power and aren't working to treat down this system, you are culpable.

[johnfn]

Do you really think that the actions of GitHub are equivalent to that of the Nazi regime?

[andersonpico]

it's definitely not and would be absurd to suggest otherwise, but isn't it also a very common way of illustrating the dilution of responsibilities among a very large group of people?

[coryrc]

The actions of Microsoft leadership are not the same as the Nazi regime, but are similar to the industrialists that supported Adolf Hitler's rise. I ain't Godwinning this thread, we're well along the rise of the American Reich.