[defrost]

Of possible interest, Ballard's The Atrocity Exhibition is themed abut mass media intrusion into private mind spaces, Carey's Bliss about an ad exec whose heart stops, re-awakening convinced he is in hell (but merely life with the scales fallen from his eyes).

Such things are still not reason to dis other HN commentators - there's always reddit for that.

[datsci_est_2015]

> Such things are still not reason to dis other HN commentators - there's always reddit for that.

Mmm, this I disagree with particularly. I view HN as a forum dedicated to the technology professions, and as such, it’s an extremely appropriate place to shame those in the profession who refuse to consider the second-order effects of their work.

We (those in the technology profession) have no union through which we can encourage professional standards and ethics and codes of conduct. Shame is pretty much the only and last bastion for those of us who care about how we make our money, and not just the amount written on the paycheck.

I know there are some people, both in this forum, and who I’ve met in person - (“Raytheon? How do you feel about the moral dilemma of working for a weapons manufacturer?” … “We manufacture weapons? I just work in HR.”) - who will never lose an ounce of sleep considering their line of work due to an underdeveloped sense of ethics.

But there are some people who are in the middle ground who can still be won over. Every year that passes it becomes more important that technologists are aware of the ethical implications of their work - no matter how much capital incentivizes the opposite. Don’t let a paycheck delude you.

[defrost]

> Mmm, this I disagree with particularly.

I'd suggest taking that up with Paul Graham, @dang, and @tomhow - they would respond that curious conversation about second order effects is what they seek - sans the direct personal attacks seeking to directly shame another person for their choices.

> How do you feel about the moral dilemma of working for a weapons manufacturer?

Weapons, of course, cut both ways; Ukraine is pushing back against an aggressor by using weapons, long range sensing, passive radar, etc.

> Every year that passes it becomes more important that technologists are aware of the ethical implications of their work

Agreed - that doesn't imply you should call perceived less enlightened others names or champion throwing them in the stocks .. such things rarely convert and often harden resistance.

[datsci_est_2015]

We can argue about whether the OP should have found a more elegant way to call out the commenter he was responding to, of course. But I stand my ground firm that this industry needs an extreme dose of self-reflection injected directly to its heart, and shame seems to be an effective medium available to us as peer technologists. There are different methods of shaming, of course, but ideally those who are currently earning money from unethical sources should feel ashamed. Furthermore, whether someone does feel ashamed because of what someone commented should not be a criteria for whether a comment is a “personal attack”.

Humans use shame to correct antisocial behavior, and humans feel shame in order to avoid antisocial behavior. The technology professions are rife with antisocial behavior. Our leaders are chosen and their behavior is optimized as antisocial, for shareholder (and personal) short-term growth.

> Weapons, of course, cut both ways; Ukraine is pushing back against an aggressor by using weapons, long range sensing, passive radar, etc.

This is an entirely different subject that I don’t think we should get sidetracked by. I’ll just recommend Die Physiker (or one of its translations) as a fun starting point for radicalization against the argument you presented.

[defrost]

> as a fun starting point for radicalization against the argument you presented

As a gentle reminder, it was yourself that raised weapons as a moral dilemma, I responded with no argument other than a plain observation.

> but ideally those who are currently earning money from unethical sources should feel ashamed

More often they likely sleep deeply on sheets of insanely high thread count, shame only goes so far to effect change.

> I’ll just recommend Die Physiker

If I recall correctly that came up when I had a long discussion with Mark Oliphant in the late 1970s, William Tutte had a few books of his own to recommend on similar themes not long after.

[datsci_est_2015]

> More often they likely sleep deeply on sheets of insanely high thread count, shame only goes so far to effect change.

Do you have alternative suggestions, or will you stick to simply discouraging the use of shame on this forum?

[tomhow]

I'm a moderator here, and defrost is right. It's not cool to berate or “shame” people on HN. The very first phrase in the "In Comments" section of the guidelines is "Be Kind".

We can critique issues and trends in the industry or broader economy, including advertising; that happens all the time here. But also, on HN we're trying for conversation that is curious and thoughtful, at a standard that is higher than the average discussion forum. If we're going to make sweeping assertions like “advertising shouldn't exist”, we also need to offer suggestions of viable alternatives for ways that companies can get their products known about by people who might need them, and for websites to generate income to fund their operations. These are absolutely valid topics of thoughtful discussion in the spirit of curious conversation, which is entirely what HN is for.

Shaming an individual for working in a domain you've decided you don't like (though legal and widespread) is never okay here.

[defrost]

I'm pretty happy abiding by the spirit of this forum.

There are many forums that allow and even encourage attacks on others.

[antonvs]

> it’s an extremely appropriate place to shame those in the profession who refuse to consider the second-order effects of their work.

The HN guidelines follow the approach which Martin Luther King Jr. criticized:

> [the] moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice

Politeness is considered more important than holding people to account. This acts as a strong protection of the status quo, i.e. it’s fundamentally conservative.

I’ve been observing another institution which follows that approach: the US Congress and Senate. It hasn’t been working out so well.

(Side note: I had to wait a few hours to be allowed to post this comment; how many comments are abandoned for that reason, or result in people going elsewhere, leaving this site to its self-reinforcing prejudices. It’s not the discourse encourager that some people imagine it is.)

[Cider9986]

It's not hard to disagree politely. People do it all the time.

The thing you are missing is that discourse is terrible when people are rude. It's full of name calling, tone policing and moves away from the topic.

[antonvs]

I’m not missing anything. I used to use Usenet, notorious for flamewars. What you’re missing is that when you don’t try to control and nanny people, they can settle into an equilibrium on their own.

Edit: also, I find it revealing that you felt compelled to include that bit about "the thing you are missing", which is just a passive-aggressive way to call me an idiot who can't even see what you consider an obvious consequence. If you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that. I'd much rather someone be honest than fake polite.

[datsci_est_2015]

I also am a believer in many of MLK’s more “radical” messages, and find the modern whitewashing of his messaging to be deeply representative of much of America’s core moral failings, especially as it occurs in our education system.

I’m glad you brought it up here. Just because someone speaks well, intelligently, pleasantly, or even civilly doesn’t mean their message is righteous or just. Conversely, just because someone creates discomfort or says something impolite doesn’t mean their message can be disregarded. In fact, it’s those that are in power that often decide what or what is not impolite, and even speaking truth or justice to power in the first place can be labeled as impolite. George Carlin’s primary message as a comedian was essentially that.