[oinksoft]

Perhaps I've always found it obvious that creating these things, working for companies with close ties to military and surveillance (Lockheed, etc.) is quite near evil and that professionals with integrity would not do that.

I think that is a minority view in our profession, so you are probably right.

[rayiner]

If you think working for Lockheed is evil, what do you think of working for a company like Facebook, that profits from selling the personal data of teenagers to companies who take advantage of their adolescence to peddle overpriced products to them that they don't need and that their parents can't really afford?

I'm not saying Facebook is evil, but let's face it the world is a lot more morally complex than the self-righteous want to make it out to be.

This idea that Silicon Valley is full of engineers toiling in a Parthenon of virtue while evil people in Washington misuse the fruits of their creations is utter bunk. Like every technology in history, software and internet technology can be used for different things, and there is widespread disagreement on the virtues of those ends.

E.g. Einstein might have regretted his involvement in the nuclear program, but there are a huge number of people who to this day think the development of nuclear weapons was a positive thing in how it ensured American ascendency for the succeeding half-century. At the same time, you'll find lots of people who think Lockeed, etc, are doing very noble things by developing technologies that allow American foreign policy to be implemented while getting fewer American soldiers killed (and reducing collateral damage too--a cruise missile is a lot more damaging than a drone strike). There is probably no country in history that has maintained its supremacy for as long as America has with so relatively few casualties among its armed forces. You can thank Lockheed for that.

[clicks]

> I'm not saying Facebook is evil

Why not? I say it is. Just as you said the other day -- advertising is preying on people's cognitive biases. Sure, the world is very morally complex, but that has no bearing on the morality of advertising and whether how Facebook in particular does it is evil or not.

It is evil for a panoply of reasons. Just say it, don't just hint at it. Facebook does more lasting harm to society than good.

[rayiner]

I won't say it's evil because that's like saying fattening foods or sugary sweets are evil. People love getting the latest Kate Spade handbag even if its an exercise in irrational behavior. I'm no philosopher-king, I'm not going to sit here and call it evil to give people what they want.

[clicks]

That's just a defeatist attitude then isn't it. I think it's better to proactively attack something even slightly evil, because if you don't it'll keep becoming more accepted until it becomes normal and starts rotting the very foundations of a civilized society.

It is very important to look at the "other side" of things, because there are people just like you and I on the "other side" in even greater numbers -- just not born in privileged homes with access to the same opportunities. On the other side of the Silicon Valley society that is full of white kids from high-income households with connections in high places you have poor black kids who're too poorly educated, who are more susceptible to getting had by mischievous advertising schemes of today. How this is different from pyramid schemes and other immoral -- but legal things -- is it's just more sophisticated... and I guess therefore, more effective, and therefore ultimately much more damaging.

(I have to add a meta-note, because this keeps happening over and over again: I think the last 4 or 5 times I responded to you I was upvoted and all of the follow-up comments you made to me were downvoted. I swear it's not me, I think it's a pity that this happens. As much and as often as I disagree with you I do like engaging with you because you're generally pretty thorough and pretty smart. I mean, at least you recognize that advertising is something not so "good" -- a lot of people here don't. Here's hoping my upvote to you helps).

[oinksoft]

My views are painted by pacifism, so nothing is as bad to me as producing military technology, or providing talent for the military industrial complex. Your Facebook example harps on some of the evils of capitalism (manipulative advertisements and such), but given the way the world works right now, even if you live in North Korea, you are born into that (black markets, etc. which of course beat having no economic freedom any day).

Enabling surveillance is a distant second, but still certainly wrong because it is direct support for the robbing of privacy, a basic human dignity. There is no room for ambiguity or argument as in the case of economic theory and such, like in the Facebook example.

[rayiner]

Look at it from a purely numerical standpoint. How much is lost when a teenager buys a $100 pair of Ralph Lauren jeans when a pair that is identical in all but brand-name could be produced for $20 or so? That is the opportunity cost of that money to that kid?

Military technology kills a few people (large harms to a few people), but advertising diverts vast amounts of money towards industries where it is easy to take advantage of cognitive biases to create artificial distinctions between products (small harms to lots of people). And both have their legitimate justifications too. People need to know about new products and services and advertising helps them find those products and services. And while you may be a pacifist, Americans are decidedly not. They want a country that sits at the top of the world and they want to be protected from hostility and Lockeed gives Americans what they want in that regard.

And even for a pacifist: we live in the most peaceful time in human history. American military supremacy, plays a big part in maintaining that state of affairs. Countries that might be incentivized to wage war (as countries have done since there were countries), avoid doing so because they know the American military response will be swift and overwhelming.

[oinksoft]

Using war or the threat of war to apprehend peace is antithetical to pacifism.

I'm not sure what the American populace's purported will has to do with my view that war and its antecedents are revolting. Certainly you aren't suggesting that building these things is patriotic duty for a US citizen?

[anigbrowl]

I think Rayiner is a consequentialist (as I am) - judging by quality of outcomes. This doesn't work for everything (since we lack foresight), so I'm a reluctant deontologist, in general; but lacking an obvious or enforceable ontology, consequentialism all the way, baby.

[mpyne]

> Using war or the threat of war to apprehend peace is antithetical to pacifism.

I agree, but keep in mind the person-to-person analog: "Using force or the threat of force to apprehend personal safety is antithetical to pacifism." I.e. there is a convincing philosophical argument that once you agree that people have the right to use force in self-defense, that there is a collective right to use military force for collective self-defense.

[oinksoft]

Precisely. I can't speak for all pacifists, but many, like Tolstoy, outright reject personal self-defense, at least in theory. That is to say, while it is very difficult for man to give up defense of oneself and one's family (probably for good reason), a pacifist does not see the self-defender as morally pristine. The great danger is when self-defense is given priority over other means of resolving or fleeing violence. If you believe the state's case, then I think the Zimmerman murder trial is a perfect example of zealous self-defense.