> ”And they don’t mean “good” as in quality. They mean good as in “on the side of the angels.”
And the author means "angels" as in "people who share my very specific political beliefs".
> You can’t help Uber build Greyball during the day, or help Palantir design databases to round up immigrants as your main gig, and then buy ethics offsets by doing a non-profit side hustle.
If I was a US citizen, and had an opportunity to work on software that helped enforcing immigration law, I would feel pretty proud about it.
You may disagree with the author's political beliefs, but you also aren't the subject of the author's critique.
If you help design or write a portion of a product, you are a crucial part of bringing the system into reality. If you support and believe in the mission and ends of a product, there's no issue there.
The problem occurs when you work on a system that is designed to fulfill an outcome that you don't agree with, or one that you believe is bad for society. The author's thesis is clear: If you choose to contribute to the development of such a system, you cannot divorce yourself from the consequences that will follow when your work product is turned on.
[edit: I'm not arguing for moral relativism; I'm trying to separate the argument from the concrete examples given in the piece.]
And the author means "angels" as in "people who share my very specific political beliefs".
> You can’t help Uber build Greyball during the day, or help Palantir design databases to round up immigrants as your main gig, and then buy ethics offsets by doing a non-profit side hustle.
If I was a US citizen, and had an opportunity to work on software that helped enforcing immigration law, I would feel pretty proud about it.