A lot of ethics-in-technology criticism is about the disconnect between these embedded assumptions about Goodness and whatever the critic believes is Actually Good. But arguments are rarely made in these explicit terms. Critics attack specific policies, not mission statements.
-
Show this thread
-
I want to see more criticism that sees "Facebook’s mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together." and asks "what if bringing the world closer together is bad?" and less of "when is Facebook going to ban the bad people?"
2 replies 4 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
But the deep ethical questions aren't asked of tech, because the frameworks either don't exist or aren't taught. I'm no expert, but fields like Critical Theory may have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. We no longer have clear modes of critique beyond "is this Xist?"
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
To those outside of the Critical Theory thoughtsphere, the lack of solid ethical frameworks is risky. A scary outcome is subsuming ethics to capital and state: rather than asking "is this Good?" one instead asks "is this legal?" and "will this make us money?"
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
This is why mission statements are interesting: they provide insight into how the corporate insiders are thinking about ethics. And usually, they're vague enough to be subsumed by capital concerns. To Google, I wonder if "useful" means "whatever makes us the most money." Oops.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @simpolism
corporations are/were the original utility monsters
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto
I'd modify that to "public corporations" but yes, absolutely.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @simpolism
you're juxtaposing that with the original limited charter corporation, right? I would agree with that but would also note that that type of organization is basically extinct in 2018
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto
That's fair. I'm thinking of the legal entity of a "corporation" which makes sense for e.g. contractors to form for tax and liability purposes. Not all corporations have a duty to maximize shareholder value, but all public ones probably do.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simpolism
afaik yes, that is established legal precedent with C Corps (but IANAL). even if "maximize sharedholder value" isn't explicitly written into the corporate mission statement it is implicit and has been withheld in many shareholder lawsuits.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
*upheld not withheld
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.