Andreessen's Corollary: Ethical Dilemmas in Software Engineering - Bryan Cantrill | Craft 2019

Bryan Cantrill (DTrace etc) has a good talk on ethics in software engineering[0]. Skip to 12:29 where he recalls Facebook in 2011 experimenting with users news feeds. [0] ▶ this video

Bryan Cantrill has a talk on YT on ethics in software [1]. And as I remember it the take away is that the way we think about problems isn't very conducive to obeying the law, or being good to people in general. And I've got to say the amount of people I see thinking of regulations, social norms or morals as « cruft » is pretty alarming. [1] ▶ this video

This year's Cantrill talks include one on Ethical Dilemmas [0] and another on the "Moore's Law" paper [1]. Highly recommend both. [0] ▶ this video [1] link

It was also born by the guy - Zuck and arguably in a similar spirit - who initially created a hot or not webpage to rank female college classmates by "fuckability". No clue how any of this would come as a surprise if you know his history. Brian Cantrill talks about how social media was born crocked [1] while referring to the eerily similar friendster backstory. [1] ▶ this video

I am glad to see that many people are being correcting you, but just to put a sharp point on it: I am using that metaphor to condemn Ellison, not to condone or accept him. Unfortunately, since that talk in 2011, what was an aberration (albeit a broadly unspoken one) has since -- tragically -- become the norm. I refuse to accept this, however: I will continue to speak my truth about the moral decay in tech, and why we must hold ourselves to a higher standard.[0][1][2][3][4] And I obviously agree with your indignation that poor corporate behavior should not be the status quo! [0] Principles of Technology Leadership , link (2017) [1] Andreessen's Corollary: Ethical Dilemmas in Software Engineering , ▶ this video (2019) [2] (Anti-)application Video for YC120 , link (2019) [3] Coming Of Age , link (2022) [4] Intelligence is not Enough , link (2023)

> Within 2 minutes of talking to the final interviewer for DOGE, he asked me if I wanted to join. I said “yes”. Then he said “cool” and I was in multiple Signal groups. [...] So I reached out to some people and got in. After 8 calls with people who all talked fast and sounded very autistic smart, I was added to a number of Signal groups and immediately put to work. [...] The next 4 weeks of my life consisted of 100s of calls recruiting the smartest people I’ve ever talked to, working on various projects I’m definitely not able to talk about, and learning how completely dysfunctional the government was. It was a blast. While I can attest that current day governments in general - some more, some less and I assume past governments as well - can be quite inefficient. I sometimes fantasize about making parts of it more lean and efficient because how hard could it be, right? And with the "right" kind of result evaluation it will not be that hard to score better than it does right now. But having silicon valley techbros apply their move fast and break stuff attitude to things that aren't tech startups has repeatedly resulted in awful results [1]. So I must say reading this passage is quite revealing in ways I think the author did not intend it to be. [1] ▶ this video

Yes, you have brought this up before.[0] And as I have said before[1] -- and will presumably say for the next 26 years as well -- I very much regret that quip. (The irony is that that was dredged up in part because people very strongly disagreed with my handling of the Noordhuis incident a decade ago.) But I will stand by my assertion that I have been outspoken about my disagreements with what I have found to be problematic in modern Silicon Valley, e.g. [2][3][4]. [0] link [1] link [2] link [3] ▶ this video [4] link

Yes, it was actually Gab -- and I talked about it in a talk on ethics on software engineering.[1] As you indicate, that talk captures my feelings on the matter, so I'll let it speak for itself... [1] ▶ this video