We are complicit in our employer’s deeds

I agree with this, but also think that working for an employer that is "making a negative impact on the world" might _sometimes_ be the right choice. Specifically, it could be justified for two reasons:

First: you might have more impact on the organization from the inside than from the outside (this is most relevant to people joining at a high/senior level). For example, Google seems to be making privacy far, far worse. Yet there are some people on the inside fighting to limit the privacy violations, which leads to decisions like banning GPS tracking in their contact tracing app[0]. Would the world be better or worse off if the only people working at Google were people who don't care at all about user privacy? I'm honestly not sure, but I can at least see an argument that it might be even worse off.

Second: you might get something from the organization that lets you do good that outweighs any harm you contribute to (this is more relevant to junior employees). Many employers provide something (training, future job opportunities, or a high enough income to open your own small business/non-profit). A thoughtful employee can go into a "negative impact" employer with eyes wide open and a plan to get something, and get out.

However, in either case, self awareness and a definite exit plan are _key_. As Drew writes, once you are working at a "negative impact" employer,

> Doublethink quickly steps in to protect your ego from the cognitive dissonance, and you take another little step towards becoming the person you once swore never to be.

The way to avoid that sort of conative dissonance is 1) know that you'll experience it and be on guard against it, and 2) know all along that you're there temporarily and should never get too comfortable. Even then, you should be realistic about how long you can maintain your personal values in face of a very different culture. For a junior employee, I'd say two, maybe three years should be the absolute limit before you get out.

[0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-ap...

About double think, what is the difference between cognitive dissonance and your mind actually changing about a certain company or role because you now are more informed about it and choose to see it in a better light? People swear to never do things all the time until they do them. Does that mean they're evil people? Or does that mean their views have changed? And if their views have changed, who are we to tell them what's wrong and right?

I agree that we have a moral line we can decide to cross at work or not. We can step in and say "this isn't right". We all have our own limits. If a company passes our line, we can decide to stay and be a dissenting voice in a sea of "yes men" or we can move on.

The one thing that bugs me about a post like this is where does our complicity end? Did Drew also change all his investments to divest from Amazon or Facebook or other company that is making the world worse? Nestle is one of the most evil companies in the world. Are we all boycotting all their products and not investing in their companies? We can all do more to make the world a better place but each individual has to decide their own thresholds. It is impossible for each of us to stand against all the evils in the world. Most of us have been very happy with 30% returns in our retirement even though we secretly know it is driven by the same companies we claim must be stopped. Most people just want to provide for their family and live their life. Not everyone can (or wants to) be a social justice warrior. It is a very complicated issue and I think we paint it too black and white at times.

> which leads to decisions like banning GPS tracking in their contact tracing app[

Ot, but I'm not sure I get this: google maps tracks most people all the time. Are they suddenly concerned about the privacy implications when it's about a temporary, non commercial product meant to manage a pandemic and handled by democratically elected governments instead of a multinational corporation?

>Did Drew also change all his investments to divest from Amazon or Facebook or other company that is making the world worse?

Yes.

>Nestle is one of the most evil companies in the world. Are we all boycotting all their products and not investing in their companies?

Yes.

>Most of us have been very happy with 30% returns in our retirement even though we secretly know it is driven by the same companies we claim must be stopped.

Not me. I don't think this is right, and I don't appreciate the attempts at the normalization this idea. Don't be the 'Good German'.

The problem is that the political sphere has become so dysfunctional that we're forced to act through the economic one. Not that it's terribly effective either, but the opposite leaves you vulnerable to "not living your principles" attacks to drive you out of the political argument.

> People swear to never do things all the time until they do them. Does that mean they're evil people? Or does that mean their views have changed?

I think it's important to distinguish between two types of changes: changes in factual information versus changes in values. If someone changes their mind because they have more information, then that's basically fine (it could be bad if the new information is wrong or misleading, of course, but there's no fundamental objection). And working at a company does sometimes lead to this sort of change (learning about confidential info, for example).

If someone changes their views based on something other than facts, though, it means that their values have changed: something that used to be important to them no longer is, or something else has grown in importance. In my experience, this sort of change is much more common when someone works for an employer for a long period of time – it's not that they have learned important new facts about that employer, it's just that they are now culturally "on the inside" and don't want to think ill of their friends and colleagues (there's that cognitive dissonance again).

You asked "who are we to tell them what's wrong and right?". I believe that we _can_ legitimately criticize someone else's value system, but that's getting into (admittedly contended) philosophy.

Instead of wading into the philosophical debate, I'll just say this: Most people don't want their values to change (that's almost what it means for something to be a "value": you value it!). And (imo) most people significantly underestimate the amount of values drift that can take place for purely social reasons. Given that I care about living up to my values, I don't want to hack my brain in ways that make me stop caring about those values. And that's just as true when the change to my brain comes from working ~5 years with basically decent folks as if it came from brain surgery. (And, imo, smart nerds are especially at risk of underestimating how much their values can drift based on their peer group.)

There is a stark difference between being perfect and putting in a modicum of effort to not work for garbage and in turn create garbage.

I'm sorry if you took this as an attack. That is not my intention or point. I'm not being a "Good German". I'm not saying we can't fight all evil so don't fight any.

I'm merely discussing that we too often we make a stand against one "evil" and not against others that are even easier. For a lot of people the line is what becomes inconvenient. People are posting comments that Amazon should treat people better while they spin up a new instance and order next day toilet paper. This is important stuff to talk about. I doubt that most people who agree with your actions and are posting support are also divesting the same way you are. We can all do more and take more action against what is wrong. I applaud your actions. The hard part is taking actions by a few and turning it into a movement that causes rippling change.

He's not taking it as an attack, he's pointing out that you are assuming that everyone goes through life in this sort of 'morals-lite' way.

Many people actually do try as hard as possible, wherever practicable to do the right thing, and restrict themselves in the process.

The distinctions then become whether they agree on the set of 'bad things', not whether they do them or not.

If you think something is bad, like really bad, just stop doing it, you are not some poverty-level sharecropping farmer, you have that choice.

everyone has a limit to how much they want to help. "The life you can save" makes a strong moral point that if you arent spending every penny to save the life of a child that would die from an easily preventable disease (5000 children die in africa every single day from easily preventable diseases), you have chosen to value their life at less than your fancy dinner, movie, or luxury electronics.

Everyone makes those choices, even you. Be happy with your decision, but while you judge other people as "good germans" recognize that you are a good german too.

You're right, of course, it's a spectrum. But, I addressed a similar comment here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23080583

>There's a pretty damn big difference between throwing out $5 of food while someone across the Earth starves, and in directly making the software which opresses millions of people, raising millions of dollars for the people responsible, and pocketing huge salaries for yourself.

Working for bigcorp as a software engineer is pretty long on that spectrum.

> The one thing that bugs me about a post like this is where does our complicity end?

Just draw any line, anywhere; and everyone can draw a different line for themselves. Acknowledging that there is evil is the first step to improvement, and that happens when you draw a line.

The real problematic attitude is to say there is no evil, or if there is evil it is not my responsibility and my decision framework will not include any ethical calculations. Sadly, there are far too many people with this attitude, probably the majority, who make it impossible for the rest to improve the world.