Mozilla Wants Young People To Consider 'Ethical Issues' Before Taking Jobs In Tech (vice.com) 107
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: The Mozilla Foundation, the non-profit arm of the company known for its privacy-friendly web browser Firefox, released a guide today for helping students navigate ethical issues in the tech industry, in particular, during the recruitment process. The guide advises students not to work for companies that build technology that harms vulnerable communities, and to educate themselves "on governance" inside companies before taking a job. It also discusses unions drives, walkouts, petitions, and other forms of worker organizing.
The guide, which takes the form of a zine titled "With Great Tech Comes Great Responsibility," follows events hosted by the Mozilla Foundation last fall in partnership with six university campuses, including UC Berkeley, N.Y.U., M.I.T., Stanford, UC San Diego, and CSU Boulder. Not so subtly, it calls out Amazon, Palantir, and Google, which have faced backlash in recent months from tech workers as well as students on the campuses where they recruit. "Addressing ethical issues in tech can be overwhelming for students interested in working in tech. But change in the industry is not impossible. And it is increasingly necessary," reads the opening of the 11-page handbook -- citing military contracts, algorithmic bias, inhumane working conditions in warehouses, biased facial recognition software, and intrusive data mining as causes for concern.
The guide, which takes the form of a zine titled "With Great Tech Comes Great Responsibility," follows events hosted by the Mozilla Foundation last fall in partnership with six university campuses, including UC Berkeley, N.Y.U., M.I.T., Stanford, UC San Diego, and CSU Boulder. Not so subtly, it calls out Amazon, Palantir, and Google, which have faced backlash in recent months from tech workers as well as students on the campuses where they recruit. "Addressing ethical issues in tech can be overwhelming for students interested in working in tech. But change in the industry is not impossible. And it is increasingly necessary," reads the opening of the 11-page handbook -- citing military contracts, algorithmic bias, inhumane working conditions in warehouses, biased facial recognition software, and intrusive data mining as causes for concern.
Not impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not impressed. This seems more like an attack on Google, et al., than something that's actually helpful to students starting out in the industry.
Discussion around these issues is important, but I don't think it's appropriate for Mozilla to explicitly call out other companies like this. There's enough of that happening these days already.
Re: (Score:2)
Discussion around these issues is important, but I don't think it's appropriate for Mozilla to explicitly call out other companies like this.
What about being a corporation rightly should shield them from criticism?
There's enough blind obedience to the corporation these days already. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Environmental concerns are just a small part of it, these days more important are the effects that technologies have on democracy and society.
Take Facebook. Parts of it are toxic and do people real harm. It's leaked vast amounts of personal data. Been used by foreign powers to manipulate democracy and sow discontent among the population.
Facial recognition and automated sentencing decisions are both areas where we have seen bias in the systems people built. That's the kind of thing that needs to be taught.
Re: Not In MY 'murikuh (Score:1)
In other parts of the world said rights to collect data are reserved for the (often unelected) government.
Re: (Score:2)
Not denying Facebook can be toxic. But, really, you don't need all these newfangled "social media" companies to find online toxicity. The internet has been a den of toxicity as long as I've had access to it, going all the way back to the alt. hierarchy on usenet. Growing a thick skin and learning to ignore assholes was always kind of a prerequisite for spending a lot of time online. For my part, Facebook offers an acceptable value proposition. And I have it trained such that I see little of the toxicity any
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen anything on Facebook that would *EVER* have made me consider voting for the current occupant of the white house.
Of course not. People like you who would never vote for him are not the targets, it would be a complete waste of time because as you say it will not change your mind.
Facebook offers tools to very precisely target ads to people who might change their minds, who are close but just not quite over the line. Additionally because it's a social network it's great for creating bubbles to trap people in, where they self-select to be victims.
Best part is people outside of all this don't even see it, and don't think a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read TFA and they mention two things Google did as examples of ethical issues in tech:
- Project Maven, the Pentagon contract, which employees petitioned against and which was eventually dropped after sustained pressure.
- Banning political discussion at Google, which the Labour Board decided was illegal.
Those are both very relevant lessons, and I wouldn't class it as an attack on Google.
The ultimate in Virtue Signaling (Score:2)
I'm not impressed. This seems more like an attack on Google, et al., than something that's actually helpful to students starting out in the industry.
Discussion around these issues is important, but I don't think it's appropriate for Mozilla to explicitly call out other companies like this. There's enough of that happening these days already.
Oh, it's more than that. This is more Mozilla dick-waving. For all their preening wokeness, if it were up to Mozilla employees, all you BadThink people out there would lose access to everything from technology to employment.
After what their mob did to Brendan Eich, I hope the whole damn foundation goes kaput.
So... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I can already see the reddit trolls "Damn Millennials are looking for even more reasons to be unemployed! Laziest generation ever! When I was a kid we murdered minorities before breakfast, while driving down the road in our old pickup spewing as much black smoke as we could, throwing our garbage at squirrels. And that's how we liked it."
Re: So... (Score:2)
Were you looking in the mirror to see the troll?
Was it ethical to blow donner money on non tech? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The money probably didn't helped the vulnerable people as well.
Do No Evil! (Score:2)
in the meantime... (Score:1)
The ethics of living in a van by the river (Score:4)
and starving to death, vs the ethics of working as a mindless drone for some nameless, faceless corporate monstrosity?
A shitty job at a shitty company is a badge of honor, and if you're going to be an IT professional, expect lots of job hopping and extremely ephemeral employment.
Once you have a job, it's much less problematic getting a new one.
Re:The ethics of living in a van by the river (Score:5, Insightful)
and starving to death, vs the ethics of working as a mindless drone for some nameless, faceless corporate monstrosity?
Seriously, those are the only two choices?
Truthfully, most people don't have the luxury to be picky about jobs they take. But the best, the pick of the litter, they *do* have choice. And the best matter very, very much to tech companies. So if you *do* have a choice of roughly comparable jobs, why not consider what that job means to you?
Re: The ethics of living in a van by the river (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't even say "roughly comparable", sometimes the ethical issues are overwhelming.
I've turned down jobs that paid a lot more than my current one on ethical grounds before. We are talking child labour and marketing tobacco products to kids. There is a line you shouldn't cross, a very fuzzy line.
Re: (Score:1)
From the youngsters I know right now, they're living in Mom's basement off of child support from Dad, whom they refuse to talk to because he tells them to get a job while Mom encourages their "mental health days". Unless they're black, in which case Mom is living off of the child support from the state. As racist as it sounds, the number of single mothers is so outrageous, over 70% for black children, the current teen generation thinks their future comes from the hands they're busy biting. If you think I'm
Re: (Score:2)
"A shitty job at a shitty company is a badge of honor, and if you're going to be an IT professional, expect lots of job hopping and extremely ephemeral employment."
Let's just rearrange this for the vast majority of employees.
"...if you're going to be an IT professional...expect...A shitty job at a shitty company..."
It only took me 35 years working in the IT industry as contract and permanent employment to learn that! ha ha!
Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhere in the New Testament Jesus says it's cool to eat bacon.
I'm pretty sure it's in there.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If it were true, it would have been going on before the 21st century.
Also, why would Paul tell people not to get circumcised if it was required by the OT?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Marriage has meant many things in pretty much all times and all places, including the Christianized western Europe for the last two thousand years -- everyone who has a reasonable knowledge of history would understand that. A Christian who claims to know what all Christians believed is both ignorant and stupid. I am not going to argue with myself about how stupid they are.
If the poster cared to be a bit more explicit rather than just lazy virtue signaling, I would be more than happy to respond with more d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most Christians used to tell us that marriage between a high-melanin person and a low-melanin person of the opposite sex is against the laws and will of God. Starting from "what Christians have always believed", as if it were some kind of position of moral authority, is worthy of no more than mockery.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't want to bother people with details (or weak sauce) like that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
He was forced out of his job by the mob. Mozilla capitulated because Eich donated PERSONALLY to Prop 8 efforts. Nice try. When he was Chief Technology Officer, people inside Mozilla were aching to get rid of him because of his Catholic beliefs. It's not in dispute, even from secular news. If you think you have a better explanation, I'm sure Brendan and Mozilla (and the rest of the Internet) would love to hear it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ethics (Score:4, Informative)
Forced to resign. And no, he was CEO for a friggin week. The guy had a target on his back for years at Mozilla, because he believed something other people didn't like. (And for the record.... if we're serious about church and state, the government should be COMPLETELY out of marriage, which is a religious institution.) There are dozens of legal remedies for property, rights of parters, etc. that don't require the government to interfere in religious practices.
Re: (Score:2)
Marriage isn't just religious, it's basically a pre-prepared legal contract between two people. It comes with certain responsibilities and if the contract is broken (divorce) sets out how the partnership should be dissolved.
Re: Ethics (Score:1)
And yet it still isn't a framework that should be defined by government.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact the only record of Jesus having said anything about homosexuality is when he praised the same-sex relationship between two Romans. All the anti-gay stuff came from other people, Jesus appeared to have no problem with it.
Trees not bearing fruit out of season though...
Re: (Score:3)
Jesus also said, since you like trying to quote him: "I didn't come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." Meaning the sins enumerated in Mosaic law are still applicable, you just don't have to do a shit-ton of ceremony anymore to be forgiven of them. All the "anti-gay stuff" came from God to his followers. It's not "other people." Stay away from relgiious commentary. You don't have the chops.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact the only record of Jesus having said anything about homosexuality is when he praised the same-sex relationship between two Romans. All the anti-gay stuff came from other people, Jesus appeared to have no problem with it.
Trees not bearing fruit out of season though...
People like the angry stuff from the old testament when they get to hurt people plus the bits where Jesus repealed the laws they find personally inconvenient. The thing the Christian right falls down on is loving their neighbur. And not
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"paid money to cause harm to people". When you divorced yourself from reality you should have at least asked for visitation rights.
He paid money to try to strip rights from people. In what alternate reality is that not paying to cause harm?
Oh yeah the alternate reality where if you hurt people for politics or religion it doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly you should really read more about Christianity. I don't think you have a flippin' clue about the Bible or Jesus. Jesus also said "I didn't come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." That means the law was still there, but doctrinally you were no longer required to provide the Mosaic sacrifices for your sins. So what God called a sin to the Hebrews STILL applies, even though Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice for your sins. Eich was forced out after a coordinated effort WITHIN mozilla to oust hi
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly you should really read more about Christianity. I don't think you have a flippin' clue about the Bible or Jesus. Jesus also said "I didn't come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it."
So why do the homophobes wear mixed fibres then? I know plenty about the bible and Christianity. The homophobic right cherry pick a bunch of stuff as rage fuel and ignore the shit that actually inconveniences them. You have a rich man paying to cause harm to people nuder the guise of Christianity? How is his camel goi
Re:Ethics (Score:4)
My understanding was he paid money to a political action group that, among other things, also advocated for a traditionalist definition of marriage, but I admit I might be misremembering that part, it's been a while. Either way, this was at a time when probably something like 40% or so of the country believed marriage was between a man and a woman and probably closer to 75% didn't think believing that made you Hitler like certain vocal people these days do. He also donated privately and didn't announce it or talk about it, with his own money, which I think is an appropriate way to handle political advocacy if you're a representative of the company (the alternative would be that no political advocacy is allowed for anyone in a public role, which is absurd, people should be able to support causes they believe in and corporations shouldn't own your private life).
I don't particularly like that he donated to a group that supported a traditionalist view of marriage. In my opinion, the "traditionalist" view of marriage causes harm and does no good, even if it's historically correct. Language exists to serve our needs and what we needed was a legal system that afforded the same protections and benefits to both gay and straight couples. I don't really care what it's called, and I think churches shouldn't be involved in that system to begin with in a nominally secular government.
So I don't exactly like that he donated to a group like that, but I take even more issue to the fact that his personal, private political advocacy was used to push him out of a professional position that he was extremely qualified for. That's wrong on the individual level and frankly terrifying if taken generally, because as I said earlier, it means corporations and internet mobs hold power over your private life and over what you're able to do for the causes you believe in. And while I think this particular cause was BS, that won't always be the case. Corporations and internet mobs are not the kind of people I want deciding what causes are or are not acceptable for me to support.
Re: (Score:2)
He decided to resign likely because he was told to either resign with benefits or be terminated without benefits.
You are speculating.
traditionalist
And in this case "traditional" beans denying rights and legal protections to a segment of the population.
Either way, this was at a time when probably something like 40% or so of the country believed marriage was between a man and a woman
So where do you draw the line at tyranny of the not even majority? If 40% of the population thought it was OK to deny citizenshi
My priorities (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Well said, that my friend is the "elephant in the room" of this discussion.
A social conscience is like a garden outhouse, you try to swallow it and it will stick in your throat!
Sure we all like to think were eco-friendly, anti-animal testing or whatever our primary cause is to save the planet, but truth is that you'll take practically any job from any company when it looks like your your fridge is empty and the rent is due in a couple of weeks. This is especially true if you don't have higher education cert
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
One of the great things about living in a socialist democracy like the ones in Europe is that those basic needs are guaranteed so you don't have to worry too much about them. No matter how bad things get you will have food, shelter, medical assistance and some help to get your life back on track.
It's far from a perfect system but it takes the edge off the way people think and behave towards each other, at least to an extent.
Re: (Score:2)
My priorities are simple. My food, my shelter, my means of income, and then your needs come after that.
This is true, but one wonders how much people really worry about it, especially when you see all the unnecessary, stupid shit people buy. Even "poor" people. On credit. While complaining about the wealthy, handing capitalists their money by borrowing thousands from them to be paid back at interest.
Well, let's see here... (Score:2)
...okay, I'm now done considering.
I still wanna get rich above all else. Next!
Get woke go broke (Score:2, Informative)
Ya ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mozilla Wants Young People To Consider 'Ethical Issues' Before Taking Jobs In Tech
In other words: First World, Rich People problems.
Re: (Score:1)
Heh. I just got a recruiter call from Google, and told them to get stuffed because of their firing of James Dalmore means they fire people for peaking truth, and the $90,000,000 golden parachute means they reward predators for raping their own staff.
The "censure truth, permit rape by leaders" message from Bill Clinton's presidency keeps playing out in various politically correct institutions who mouth platitudes while committing crimes and abusing the public, and I don't care to help them with it. Fortunate
Re: (Score:2)
In other words: First World, Rich People problems.
Yes, it is. So why SHOULDN'T they consider it? Are you saying that, because being able to choose a job is a first world rich people problem, rich people in the first world SHOULDN'T consider the ethics of potential employers? If first world rich people don't consider ethics, who will?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Missing section (Score:5, Interesting)
How about actual lawbreaking companies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Has Mozilla been considering the companies that are actually flatly illegal?
How about Uber's / Lyft's entirely illegal taxi services and employer tax evasion (by trying to deny they employ drivers)?
How about Deliveroo / Doordash / etc paying less than minimum wage?
How about AirBNB's entirely illegal hotel/apartment renting and shafting of local people in tourist destinations who are priced out of their rented apartments?
Bashing the FAANG is all fashionable, but they're not even the most evil companies. They're just the most powerful ones.
Mozilla are right that you should think about ethics - and you should think about ethics of more than the biggest companies in the world!
What's in the Guide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically, the guide itself is very irresponsible. Obviously written by a 50+ year old ex-hippie.
In their "Timeline," they advocate for those that campaigned for the release of "computer programmer Clark Squire." Clark Squire, aka Sundiata Acoli, was convicted of a 1973 murder of a state trooper. Incomprehensible that they draw out this example in their brief timeline.
They, of course, are anti-Military and anti-ICE, applauding those that deleted code they had written in protest. A responsible article would have couched the decision to support the Military or ICE as something to consider, not bad at the outset.
They come to the incorrect conclusion about bias in the Northpointe/COMPAS parole algorithm. It's not human biases that are programed into the software, it's statistics. Specifically, the study says "The authors found that the average risk score for black offenders was higher than for white offenders, but that concluded the differences were not attributable to bias."
Then, they offer advice - "nonprofit or government actors researching AI...are worth exploring" and small companies "are more likely to be in a financial crunch and possibly resistant to making decisions for ethical reasons."
Worth the read to see how old hippies think.
Pot meet kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. What a wacky world. Mozilla has been selling user data and performing monitoring of its users for decades.
Re:Pot meet kettle (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this any different than when Linus Torvalds takes a patch for the Linux kernel from Microsoft? /. right?) just so long as it doesn't influence your views and judgements. This is different from "political donations" (perhaps better understood as "political investments") which seek to altar a person's actions and positions based on money paid.
You can take money from others with differing views on Free Software (this is still
Re: (Score:2)
Ethics of Pocket (Score:2)
Has Mozilla considered the ethics of spending donations on buying a company providing them a window into what people are viewing with their browser after removing the functionality needed to let them have extensions which perform the same function locally instead of "in the cloud"?
You wanna know an ethical goddamn issue? (Score:2)
The cost of housing in my city (I'm not even American) and the cost of housing across the world.
I have very little time for ethics, with a wife to look after and rent / mortgages being high as HELL. We're rapidly approaching Lord Grantham style era here, where we all just live on some bastards GIANT property as his slaves, we get a small shack in return for looking after the ponys in the stables.
Ethical issues indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.theatlantic.com/id... [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Aus, EXACTLY the same bullshit here. Tens of thousands of poorly constructed, over priced, shitty apartments, no one wants to live in.
Built for the Chinese. Tying up developers, builders and lands, raising the prices of 'normal' dwellings and creating nothing but a plague.
Only people gaining from it are Govt in taxes and fees and developers. The locals are shafted, it's a disgrace.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethical issues are difficult (Score:5, Insightful)
I can understand not taking a job at a company that builds land mines disguised as children's toys or something, but in a lot of cases the ethics are extremely complex. Does providing law enforcement with better tracking technology help or hurt? How about improved precision military weapons? Computer games that are so much fun that people play them too much - was CIV a good thing or an evil thing?
I think its OK to at least be aware of possible ethical issues, but also to be aware that sometimes the issues are complex.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, what happens if everyone does the basic thing in question? If everyone who has the ability to help protect the nation choses not to, the nation will cease to exist shortly thereafter, and the people will no longer be able to chose such things for themselves. If choice leads to not being able to chose ever again, it is the wrong one.
It is wrong to help punish the innocent or to deny their freedom. But, to prevent the apprehensio
Is mozilla going to help financially ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, but that's bullshit.
According to the College Board, the average cumulative student debt balance in 2017 was $26,900 for graduates of public four-year schools and $32,600 for graduates of private nonprofit four-year schools.
That's a far cry from your absurd $100K claim.
There are also plenty of jobs in rural America where the cost of living is cheap. If your average Feminist Dance Therapy graduate can learn to push some buttons on an automated assembly machine at a factory in, say, South Carolina, they
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, by suggesting ethical considerations Mozilla is now beholden financially, otherwise they're massive hypocrites. Good catch. Also, fancy IT jobs are only available in Manhattan or Silicon Valley. Truly these hard times will evolve a generation of magnificent stallions.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the New York Times the number is actually around $29,900 for 2019 that is for all private and public loans.
To reach that $100,000 number there are only 6.1% of graduates that borrow that much and the people doing that are going into medical.
Good on Mozilla! (Score:2)
Do not do unto others (Score:3)
It's amazing how many Slashdot nerds don't even want to consider it, and that it's anyone else's problem but theirs.
If someone or some employer does something shitty to you, you Slashdot nerds deserve it because you've loudly proclaimed that ethics is someone else's problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So in your mind, NO ONE should talk about ethics unless they're some sort of saint? Therefore humans should never think of acting with ethics in mind because there are no real saints?
Securing one's nation is ethical. (Score:5, Interesting)
Defending your community is ethical. Protecting people from harm cannot be otherwise.
Defending your nation is ethical. It is your community, your family, and yourself.
Working for those who secure your nation, providing them with the means and support to do so, is entirely ethical. To say otherwise is simply absurd.
A nation in which the people decide not to secure it will be conquered by any nation in which the people are not free to make such a choice.
It is a profoundly anti-ethical lie to tell people that working towards the security of their nation, family, friends, and neighbors is wrong. To do so is to encourage people to use their freedom to end their freedom; to bring suffering to their loved ones; to end that which gave them the opportunity to help keep them safe.
Not everyone is needed to provide for the nation's security, but if no-one does then no-one has it and all die.
Thus, Mozilla is encouraging national suicide. They are telling those who can help protect everyone else that they should refuse. They are inverting the very concept of ethics and proclaiming that which is evil to be what is good.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethics!=Morality.
If your nation is the DPRK, helping the Kim family is ethical. If your ruler is Pol Pot, then helping him maintain dominance during the bloody Khmer Rouge was ethical. Were you an Iraqi during Saddam Hussein's regime, crushing rebellions using chemical weapons would also be ethical -- you're merely supporting the security of your country.
Your reasoning is ethical and yet amoral.