> The spectrum of rich person crank behavior has got a lot worse these days, going all the way up to "buying Twitter".
And even that pales in comparison to running for President thrice and winning it twice just to settle an imagined score with Barack Obama for a well-deserved roast [1] and rip apart everything bearing his name.
If the people who cry about the rich spent 15% of their time minding their own business and focusing on their own success, they'd actually be successful.
Somehow those who cry nonstop about the rich are even more insufferable than the rich.
This may be hard to remember but in 2005 (when I joined Google), everyone pretty much universally loved them and thought they were making the world better. I left in 2013, in part because the company was gradually turning into something different.
Ahh yes. The old "because they were within 10 feet of evil, they are evil." He didn't single-handedly stop Google, so he's guilty of perpetrating the evil himself, right?
Go on, next you'll tell me about how your hands are clean. You've never so much as touched a product that made someone's life worse.
Being complicit in feeding a malicious whale is often just as bad as being the malicious whale. When 1000 people all thing "I'm not doing that many objectively bad things at this company," that's 1000 workers under 1 tiny group's control deciding the destinies and "luck" of millions. It's obfuscation of power and responsibility, and I think people "in tech" need to realize this and accept it more than they do right now.
If you work for Google, for Apple, for Amazon - if you derive a payment from The Whale and in turn the whale continues to thrive in some way because of your work, you are complicit. Whether or not you or society is ok with it is the problem to discuss.
The word "complicit" is sneaking in a lot of philosophical baggage into your statement. Surely you cannot mean that being witness to a murder (while failing to prevent it) and committing the murder are the same sin? Or that they should be held to the same degree of judgement?
While we may say the cowardly bystander has less moral character than the one who would risk their life to attempt to stop the murder, surely you cannot mean the witness is as guilty of judgement as the murderer? You cannot mean they deserve the same sentence.
I will, for the sake of my own sanity, assume you mean that the witness is a coward. You are indicting their moral character. There is a degree of self-sacrifice that you might personally find more or less agreeable in a man. Fine.
But merely witnessing the murder is not complicity, just as merely working at Google is not complicity. Whether society is "ok" with the cowardly bystander not preventing murder is not, in my eyes, what this discussion is about.
What next? Will we compel all men to live to our standard?
No, my word choice is not sneaking in any philosophy.
> complicit
/kəm-plĭs′ĭt/
adjective
Associated with or participating in an activity, especially one of a questionable nature.
--
A witness is not participating in a murder and by only a stretch of the word is associated with it by means of them recording a version of the events in their brain.
I have to say you clearly write effectively, but surely you see that you're the one "sneaking in" philosophy here?
Pretending that slow, oppressive, plodding, calculated, rising control of a population of workers by means of wage control, obfuscation of responsibility, and simple lying to a public about goods or services is somehow murder is completely intellectually dishonest.
It is possible and necessary to recognize that there is more than one category of crime, and that each category of crime deserves its own social understanding and justice.
If I worked for a "defense" company a year or two before while they sold a gun toting robot dog, I would be complicit in its usage to kill people; if I stay there, I continue to be. I did not have to touch a single human being to be morally judged that I participated or was associated with a questionable activity.
If I worked for Facebook while they actively experimented on teenagers and children and adults to influence their minds and choices to determine their levels of suicidal tendencies without regard to their safety, I would be complicit in their actions.
I take no pleasure in saying this, because I don't know who you are, where you come from, or what you do or don't believe. What I can point as is you have tried to take a word "complicit" as a perfectly accurate word, stretch it to an invalid comparison, and then from that comparison, create a meaningless argument unrelated to my point.
That is the type of action, thinking, and wordplay I do not trust.
Yes. Working for Google is complicity in all their affairs. Witnessing a murder is not complicity in its timeline. Association by external sensory intake is not the same thing as association by direct participation, and direct participation or association with a murder is very obviously something we can morally judge.
For the sake of my own sanity, I'll assume you're simply not understanding the word choice of complicity, or are assuming that being complicit is somehow a binary judgement of quantitative punitive punishment.
He didn't have to stop Google from doing evil, but he could've refused to have his fortune coming from there.
> Go on, next you'll tell me about how your hands are clean.
They are as clean as they can be, which is a lot more that can be said from anyone who works at any FAANG (or Wall Street, or Big Oil...)
No one has been forced to work for Big Tech. No one ever said "I only took those $300k/year salary with those huge RSUs from Facebook because I couldn't find any other way to provide for my family" or "It was either working for OpenAI or washing dishes at an Olive Garden".
"Only slightly dirty" and "much dirtier than mine" are fine judgements to console yourself of your involvement, but if you intend to indict a man, you'll need much stricter standards than this.
To be completely clear: I agree with your moral assessment. I too would not work for Facebook due to my moral qualms with the company. However, it is a terribly dangerous game to begin judging a man's choices when you know nothing about him.
Before long you'll convince yourself that you're the only decent man around and the rest are less-than-human.
> but if you intend to indict a man, you'll need much stricter standards than this.
I don't want to indict anyone. I am not a judge or prosecutor. I am saying that my own moral shortcomings do not justify his.
> Before long you'll convince yourself that you're the only decent man around and the rest are less-than-human.
There is this kinda old book that has some stories in it. I never got to read the whole thing back-to-back, but the Cliff's Notes of it is pretty much that we all are imperfect beings, that we are not able to fix everything on our own and that the best we can do is to recognize and forgive the mistakes we all made.
> it is a terribly dangerous game to begin judging a man's choices when you know nothing about him.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
I don't need to know anything about a person working for Facebook to know that the product of their labor is bad for society. Saying "this thing you are doing is evil" is NOT the same as saying "you are an evil person". People will end up creating all sorts of rationalizations for their actions, especially when their identities are attached to it. If we don't call out on evil, then it becomes accepted.
