"we should be working not just to pay the bills, but to make sure we don’t create software that we will one day regret", I like the term #ethicalDebt, software engineers think a lot about technical debt when building software but we should not forget the ethical debt of what we build. https://thenewstack.io/tech-ethics-new-years-resolution-dont-build-software-you-will-regret/ #software #engineering #ethics
@bjoern “when Mark Zuckerberg was making Facebook in his dorm room bedroom, he probably wasn’t trying to make this dopamine-inducing tool”
Yes he was. He called his users “dumb fucks”. Can we please stop perpetuating this myth and giving the people who knowingly created this mess a pass with this “oops, they just wanted to make things better but ended up making things worse and accidentally becoming billionaires” narrative.
VC/startups/the Silicon Valley model is unethical.
@bob @bjoern He literally called the people who trust him “dumb fucks”: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-facebook
Facebook's arc was so predictable from the off. It was all there to see. That is why I tire of the decade-too-late centrist takes on the dangers of Facebook from embedded journals that have been riding the FB convoy for years and still now feel compelled to warn their readers against the extremism of looking for alternatives or smear FOSS types & decentralists, often barely making a living, as Mr Robot style weirdos.
There's also a lack of concern from users. I can tell all the horror stories I want, but they still think it's just how things are. Especially because the platforms are free. No one pays for "unnecessary" services.
Don't know whether any of you would/could gain anything from the following, regardless I present the article:
"List of problems endemic to social media"
The last bullet-item currently on the list:
"• Apathy: The meta-problem. 90% of users don't care enough about the above problems to switch to better systems."
I hear this comparisons often and also used it in the past. Meanwhile I come to the conclusion that it is something you can't compare. Whether it is rational or not, people have a strong privacy feeling if it is about their friends, neighbors, etc who could know something private about them but not if something as anonymous as algorithm analysis it...
@FerdiZ @aral @krozruch @kcnightfang
@bob @FerdiZ @aral @krozruch @kcnightfang
That's why I no longer use such comparisons, in my experience they don't really help. In my view you need some "real world feature" no one else has to win the majority. Just copying what's already out there in a more privacy friendly way will not win on large scale - 1/3
@bob marketing and somehow giving you less freedom instead of more... cause that makes the feds happy
Just watched an old keynote by Jan Koum the other day... It's from MWC 2014, just when it was bought by Facebook. So many things that he assured about their future business model are so dated now (based on paid subscription, not free, etc.) that I'm not sure even he believed them there. I will cut some stuff from the video and post it here, I think it's interesting to see.
What I get from what he said is that when it's free software (well, "open source" in their own words) the service is more likely to become an "open net", then anyone running their own server means more ways of exploiting it (which would lead to ways to prevent it I guess). Having said that, the questioner mentioned Telegram, which is a non-federating closed server.
So he's just kind of dodging the real issue.
You know what generates more spam? Bussinesses.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!