Bandwagoning. The narrative is so easy to spin "hey the evil board of directors forced our beloved CEO to leave. If they do that to /US/ we need to do it back to /them/.
I think that would get most people with moral concerns on board, the rest are just tech bros and would fully support a money grubbing unethical CEO if they thought they might get a bigger bonus out of it.
I mean, isn’t this just an attempt to instil democracy in their workplace? If the vast majority of employees want something, whether or not it is objectively in their best interest, shouldn’t leadership listen to them? Isn’t this just what unions do on the regular?
I have no dog in this fight, I don’t know who’s a good person and who’s bad, but I believe in democracy even when it doesn’t produce the best result. I wish all companies acted upon the wishes of their employees rather than their shareholders, customers or consumers; that would make for far more cohesive and productive workplaces.
Democracy works best when the people voting are well informed. I’m saying it seems like people have been manipulated by a very easy “us vs them” narrative to get the lower employees on board with the wishes of the upper management. And if you poised the question of “what direction should the company take, to pursue ethical AI or to try and make profitable AI” or something similar you probably would get different results.
Also this isn’t really democracy in the work place just people attaching their names to a letter. Of which I’m betting most didn’t even read themselves.
Sure, but the answer to a lack of an informed public is not reverting away from democracy; it’s trying to inform the voters. Very many people vote against their best interests on a regular basis in a political sphere, and we shouldn’t revoke their right to vote as a result. Democracy, as a principle, should still prevail.
I don’t think it’s fair to infantilise people you’ve never met in the way that you are. What evidence do you have that the people who signed on to this letter didn’t read it? What evidence do you have that they’re either naïve or easily manipulated? I think they’re unfair assumptions. They may be true, but I have no idea if that’s the case.
I’m working on the assumption that the people working at the company are a fairly typical example of the general population.
So I’m applying my experiences of people in general to them. It’s would be like assuming they didn’t read a software licence because most people don’t do that. And I know from previous experience that people would get an email asking them to put their name to this letter and would opt to do so based on their existing opinions, and wouldn’t take the time to actually read it. Of course some people did, but I think it’s a safe assumption to say most didn’t.
I’d argue that a group of new-tech employees is a specifically atypical example of the general population. They’re very likely tertiary qualified (minority), they’d all be earning more than six figures (minority), they’re likely on the lower end of the age bracket, and I doubt they’re representative with regards to gender and cultural background as that’s a known issue in tech. I’m not sure that cohort is in any way representative of the general population.
I’m not trying to take a stand here; I have no dog in this fight. I’m just trying to elucidate why making such an assumption might not be wise. As I’ve said before; it may be true, but I (and you) have no idea if that’s actually the case, so assuming it serves no real value.
Whatever I’m betting you didn’t even fully read my comment. You’re obviously not informed or are being manipulated. Maybe if someone just explained it to you differently you’d understand what my comment says and support it
Bandwagoning. The narrative is so easy to spin "hey the evil board of directors forced our beloved CEO to leave. If they do that to /US/ we need to do it back to /them/.
I think that would get most people with moral concerns on board, the rest are just tech bros and would fully support a money grubbing unethical CEO if they thought they might get a bigger bonus out of it.
I mean, isn’t this just an attempt to instil democracy in their workplace? If the vast majority of employees want something, whether or not it is objectively in their best interest, shouldn’t leadership listen to them? Isn’t this just what unions do on the regular?
I have no dog in this fight, I don’t know who’s a good person and who’s bad, but I believe in democracy even when it doesn’t produce the best result. I wish all companies acted upon the wishes of their employees rather than their shareholders, customers or consumers; that would make for far more cohesive and productive workplaces.
Democracy works best when the people voting are well informed. I’m saying it seems like people have been manipulated by a very easy “us vs them” narrative to get the lower employees on board with the wishes of the upper management. And if you poised the question of “what direction should the company take, to pursue ethical AI or to try and make profitable AI” or something similar you probably would get different results.
Also this isn’t really democracy in the work place just people attaching their names to a letter. Of which I’m betting most didn’t even read themselves.
Sure, but the answer to a lack of an informed public is not reverting away from democracy; it’s trying to inform the voters. Very many people vote against their best interests on a regular basis in a political sphere, and we shouldn’t revoke their right to vote as a result. Democracy, as a principle, should still prevail.
I don’t think it’s fair to infantilise people you’ve never met in the way that you are. What evidence do you have that the people who signed on to this letter didn’t read it? What evidence do you have that they’re either naïve or easily manipulated? I think they’re unfair assumptions. They may be true, but I have no idea if that’s the case.
I’m working on the assumption that the people working at the company are a fairly typical example of the general population.
So I’m applying my experiences of people in general to them. It’s would be like assuming they didn’t read a software licence because most people don’t do that. And I know from previous experience that people would get an email asking them to put their name to this letter and would opt to do so based on their existing opinions, and wouldn’t take the time to actually read it. Of course some people did, but I think it’s a safe assumption to say most didn’t.
I’d argue that a group of new-tech employees is a specifically atypical example of the general population. They’re very likely tertiary qualified (minority), they’d all be earning more than six figures (minority), they’re likely on the lower end of the age bracket, and I doubt they’re representative with regards to gender and cultural background as that’s a known issue in tech. I’m not sure that cohort is in any way representative of the general population.
I’m not trying to take a stand here; I have no dog in this fight. I’m just trying to elucidate why making such an assumption might not be wise. As I’ve said before; it may be true, but I (and you) have no idea if that’s actually the case, so assuming it serves no real value.
I too think all the people I disagree with are simply stupid and ill-informed, as that is truly the highest form of intellectual integrity
Not at all what I’m saying but go off.
Whatever I’m betting you didn’t even fully read my comment. You’re obviously not informed or are being manipulated. Maybe if someone just explained it to you differently you’d understand what my comment says and support it
Yes take lemmy comments very seriously, get into fights with strangers on the internet.
I literally just quoted you. lol
Mom and Dad aren’t fighting, Squirt, we’re just talking about something very exciting!
Not at all. But keep pouring salt over a lemmy comment if it helps you.