diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'wiki/ethics/musings.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | wiki/ethics/musings.md | 76 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 76 deletions
diff --git a/wiki/ethics/musings.md b/wiki/ethics/musings.md deleted file mode 100644 index b9a899b..0000000 --- a/wiki/ethics/musings.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,76 +0,0 @@ -# Undirected Musings about Ethics - -## Further reading - -* [The Fantasy and Abuse of the Manipulable User](http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-fantasy-and-abuse-of-the-manipulable-user) -* [Ethics for Programmers: Primum non Nocere](https://glyph.twistedmatrix.com/2005/11/ethics-for-programmers-primum-non.html) -* [The Internet with a Human Face](http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm) -* [Ethics vs Morals](http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals) -* [Yes means Yes](http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com) - -## Why bother? - -Everyone _thinks_ they're doing good most of the time. Ethical codes help -guide that sense into alignment with the surrounding social and political -context: doing good for whom, why, and with what kinds of caveats. - -## It's not about engineering, it's about people - -An ethical code for software development should not waste too much space -talking about _engineering practices_. Certainly there is value in getting -more developers and systems people to follow good engineering practice, but -an ethical code should focus on the interaction between trustworthiness, the -greater good, the personal good of _all_ the participants in the system, and -software itself. - -(This comes up in Ethics for Programmers, above.) - -It's no good to build a wonderfully-engineered system that is cheap to run -and easy to integrate with if it systematically disenfranchises and abuses -its users for the benefit of its owners, and that's a problem we actually -have via Facebook, Github, Twitter, and numerous others. - -## Ethical codes are fundamentally extrinsic - -Ethical codes exist so that others can judge our behaviour, not so that we -can judge our own behaviour. - -## Ethical codes must be constraining - -Ethical codes do not exist in a vacuum. A code that authorizes its adherents -to behave in any way they see fit, subject only to their own judgement, is no -ethical code at all. We already have that and the results have not been great. - -_This is important_ - a meaningful ethical code for software would probably -cripple most software business models. An ethical code that prioritizes -active consent, for example, completely cripples advertising and analytics, -and puts a big roadblock in buyouts like Instagram's. This may well be good -for society. - -## Integrity is not about contracts or legislation - -Ethics, personal integrity, and group integrity are tangled together, but -modern Western conceptions of group integrity tend to revolve around “does -this group break the law or engender lawsuits,” not “does this group act in -the best interests of people outside of it.” - -## Assumptions - -I've embedded some of my personal morality into the “ethics” articles in this -section, in the absence of a published moral code. Those, obviously, aren't -absolute, but you can reason about their validity if you assume that I -believe the “end user's” privacy and active consent take priority over the -technical cleverness or business value of a software system. - -### Consent and social software - -This has some complicated downstream effects: “active consent” means -something you can't handwave away by putting implied consent (for example, to -future changes) in an EULA or privacy statement. I haven't written much that -calls out this pattern because it's _pervasive_. - -The “end user is the real product” business model most social networks -operate on is fundamentally unethical under this code. It will always be more -valuable to the “real customers” (advertisers, analytics platforms, law -enforcement, and intelligence agencies) for users to be opted into new -measurements by default, _assuming_ consent rather than obtaining it. |