I once wrote code that checks location before hiding/showing the cancel button. It’s really absurd that the nice experience exists on all subscription sites by now but you only get to see it if your state demands it.
I don’t like it either but blame goes to the top of the org chart. That’s not illegal or, by the standards of the field, flagrantly unethical so it’s a bit extreme to expect someone to resign over.
Are you willing to show us your work history and let hackers news judge every single feature you have implemented in your career in exchange for money?
Is not showing a cancel button quickly better or worse than treating accessibility as a checkbox and producing things which many people struggle to use despite laws requiring you to support them? Shoving unwanted features into a bundle? Encouraging people to use Chrome by introducing dependencies on proprietary features or not testing other browsers? Designing apps with bloated JavaScript frameworks which are borderline unusable on non-flagship phones? Using ad networks which skimp on malware prevention or resell user activity data? Requiring lots of PII and storing it haphazardly? Designing products which depend on servers which are shutoff over the wishes of customers? Working for a company whose products support wars or mass surveillance?
I’m not saying it’s great but … the tech industry has a lot of problems and I can sympathize with someone who isn’t quick to resign when most of the alternatives aren’t clearly better. It’s a lot easier to say someone else should take a moral stance when you personally won’t have to pay their bills.
Well, some of those examples are instances of not being able to prioritize a good thing. That can be due to an unethical decision, but can also be due to needing to prioritize other things, possibly better things.
The unethical part of the example that I was referring to is, you have the good thing built, but you are refusing to give it to some people, for bad reasons.
Keep thinking about the parallel you’re drawing and you might hit the difference: that phrase gained notoriety in the Nuremberg trials for murder but somehow we do not give the same weight to, say, a pushy salesman or a debt collector or a government employee enforcing strict means testing laws. Is it possible that our moral sense can account for things being less severe than murder and draw a distinction between actual Nazis and people doing what they can to survive in an unforgiving country with few supports?
Same with websites like Airbnb. Last I checked, their search results only showed the 'real' prices (eg including fees) for certain states and countries. In some states you have to click into the listing before learning that there's an extra $500 cleaning fee on top of the nightly rate :)
> We can’t legislate every aspect of a respectable society.
Well it's either capitalism and regulations with no end in sight to make sure that the rich don't exploit their power to exploit everyone else, or it's random executions of bosses for "moral wrongdoings", or it's something between communism and socialism.
Their boss hired GP over others for a reason. The person who is finally desperate enough to do it might be just a little worse at their job, a little more expensive, ... It will have a cost.
German has a related expression "vorrauseilender Gehorsam" (anticipatory obedience), where people will do evil long before they are forced to because of such strategic considerations. You must never rush to give up your morals, there will be plenty of time to do so later.
I have no context of who you are/your position here, but the responses you're getting seem absurd to me.
I just don't understand people placing the blame on you when it should be on your company. Most people in the world are just trying to keep their job - you did it. It wasn't something illegal, it was something that if you didn't do, you would have risked your job and then someone else would have done it anyway.
Exactly. Those low quality comments are an example of the sad erosion of quality of comments on HN that I and others have complained about in recent times.
It's perfectly valid in our increasingly enshittified world to be angry with all those responsible for it. As much as you're right to point the finger a the C-suites, ultimately ALL of these user-hostile features, every single one, only exists because devs keep putting fingers to keyboards in exchange for checks.
Tech workers had a time where unionization and getting a voice in our companies was very much on the table, and the biggest voices among us shouted down the others in the name of rockstar salaries and free beer at the office. The "top contributors" at huge companies were scared shitless that they might have to accept a wage too much like the REST of their software engineer coworkers. The horror.
This is a deeply ignorant comment. Do you understand how much money you have to have IN SAVINGS in order to be able to weather even a moderately short hospital stay in the United States when you’re uninsured?
Maybe! But that’s certainly debatable. “I thought I was doing the right thing” is anyways a much better defense than “I was just following orders” anyways.
Rockets have value to humanity too, but some people that worked on rockets ended up working for people that did not want to use rockets to improve human life.
Obviously the difference of degree on the spectrum between the two in this case does vary greatly, but your comment reminded me of an interview with a journalist who had compiled a collection of interviews with midtier drug dealers in various cartels and one thing that stood out to him was that almost all of them, when asked why they did what they did, would respond by saying that if they didn't someone else would.
Seriously? No white lies or going along with anything that you didn't fully agree with, in your life, in all contexts? We're talking about kind and not degree here, per the comment I responded to.
Have you been fired from a job for standing on these ironclad principles?
Saying no is always an option, and this seemed like the opportunity for this. Highly paid devs consistently choosing to do this and using the "following orders"/"food on the table" defense should be socially unacceptable. However, the parent seems to feel no guilt despite the many comments blaming him, so I think protecting his feelings is not necessary.
> using the "following orders"/"food on the table" defense should be socially unacceptable...the parent seems to feel no guilt despite the many comments blaming him
Wild to compare implementing dark UX patterns to working at a concentration camp. Why not blame the electorate for voting poorly?
I think you, as the reader, are expected to mentally append “in NYC” when a link comes from nyc.gov. It seems very silly for a given municipality to need to qualify every sentence on its own website.
It's just local NYC news. Thinks are landmark to them that are often commonplace elsewhere which makes sense since millions call that place home that are not acquainted with other places. It is truly America's one megacity so that sort of puffery is expected.
The advent of dumpsters was similarly hailed there, though almost no other cities in the US throw their trash on the sidewalk.
Generally when a seller in state X in the US sells to a buyer in a different state Y the consumer protection laws of state Y apply.
Even if the seller in X does not have a presence in Y, and so you might think Y has no jurisdiction, purposefully conducting business within a state is sufficient to allow Y to assert jurisdiction in regards to that business.
No, you've found the person who (1) remembers Civil Procedure from the first year of law school [0], particularly the case of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) [1], (2) did some checking to make sure that between then and now nothing significant has changed (it hasn't--International Shoe is still the foundational case in this area), (3) remembers several large non-California companies California has successfully enforced its consumer protection and privacy laws against and several non-Illinois companies Illinois has enforced its similar laws against.
"Minimum contacts" is a good term to include in searches if you want to learn more on this.
[0] Note: I am not a lawyer. Near the end of law school I decided I'd rather be a programmer with a decent knowledge of law than a lawyer with a decent knowledge of programming.
The ironic thing to me is that Mamdani is only the mayor of NYC. He is not the governor of NY state. So if you live in Buffalo, you will still have to suffer through shenanigans?
Edit: I see others with similar thoughts from further down the scroll
> When the Biden administration introduced a junk fee rule in 2024, the US Chamber of Commerce argued it was “an attempt to micromanage businesses’ pricing structures”, and apartment fees were cut from that federal rule after lobbying by the real-estate industry.
This drives me nuts to read, because it’s usually the same pattern.
Rule -> lobbyists descend -> politicians cave -> carve out that takes away the whole point of the rule -> everyone declares victory
I don't expect that Mamdani will cave in to real estate lobbyists lol. What you're describing is exactly why Establishment Democrats are losing to Mamdani and his ilk (DSA)
The "and" is very important here. Places like Seattle now mandate servers get a real wage. It inexplicably hasn't changed tip culture at all, so now they get regular wages and still complain when someone doesn't tip 20%+ for a takeout order.
Seattle and its surrounding cities have among the highest minimum wages in the entire world (~$22/hour). You're maybe not renting a studio apartment by yourself but it is far from destitution.
I hate tip culture too, but I don’t blame the employees for it. I never tip for takeout, counter service, retail, etc, and I’ve never actually had anyone complain or so much as make a face.
For what it's worth, I just tried cancelling my NYTimes subscription to see if it was still as bad as I'd remembered, and aside from desperately begging me not to leave, it was quite simple. No need to contact support. I wasn't planning to go through with it, but I still got a nice discount for the next year, so.. thanks!
Any jurisdiction can pass a law unless there's a law against doing so.
For example, you couldn't do this in Massachusetts. A city would first have to petition the state for a new law allowing the city to pass such a local law.
97 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 62.3 ms ] threadIronically that has meant it’s hard to unsubscribe from the New York Times except in California.
I’m not saying it’s great but … the tech industry has a lot of problems and I can sympathize with someone who isn’t quick to resign when most of the alternatives aren’t clearly better. It’s a lot easier to say someone else should take a moral stance when you personally won’t have to pay their bills.
The unethical part of the example that I was referring to is, you have the good thing built, but you are refusing to give it to some people, for bad reasons.
And the “house rules” still require you to clean the place before you leave.
Genuine question. Not sure how I'd feel.
That is why regulation is so important.
Also, people’s sense of goodness doesn’t pay rent or ensure food is on the table.
Well it's either capitalism and regulations with no end in sight to make sure that the rich don't exploit their power to exploit everyone else, or it's random executions of bosses for "moral wrongdoings", or it's something between communism and socialism.
All three carry different forms of dangers.
German has a related expression "vorrauseilender Gehorsam" (anticipatory obedience), where people will do evil long before they are forced to because of such strategic considerations. You must never rush to give up your morals, there will be plenty of time to do so later.
I just don't understand people placing the blame on you when it should be on your company. Most people in the world are just trying to keep their job - you did it. It wasn't something illegal, it was something that if you didn't do, you would have risked your job and then someone else would have done it anyway.
Tech workers had a time where unionization and getting a voice in our companies was very much on the table, and the biggest voices among us shouted down the others in the name of rockstar salaries and free beer at the office. The "top contributors" at huge companies were scared shitless that they might have to accept a wage too much like the REST of their software engineer coworkers. The horror.
Are we also going to start putting LLM engineers to the fire because they're accelerating the enshitification of our world? Probably not.
You never lied or went along with something dubious? At least this person is being honest and reflective.
…no?
Certainly not where it impacted more than just me and one other person.
Why would that be normal?
Have you been fired from a job for standing on these ironclad principles?
Had my place to sleep as a young person threatened, for doing the right thing in the family business.
I don’t even feel good about Santa…
Yes, "just following orders" was not an excuse for the holocaust but we're talking about a subscription here. I for one appreciate the honesty.
> so I think protecting his feelings is not necessary.
No, just the barrage of completely lacking-of-empathy responders need your white-knighting. It’s a good thing you’re here for them.
Wild to compare implementing dark UX patterns to working at a concentration camp. Why not blame the electorate for voting poorly?
They didn't here because for them as representatives of NYC that's all they are speaking to.
Technical pedantry like this just displays poor language and social skills.
I think it's silly for a municipality to lie (by omission?) in their own press announcements.
The advent of dumpsters was similarly hailed there, though almost no other cities in the US throw their trash on the sidewalk.
Even if the seller in X does not have a presence in Y, and so you might think Y has no jurisdiction, purposefully conducting business within a state is sufficient to allow Y to assert jurisdiction in regards to that business.
I've found the person who lives in California lol, no it does not work that way.
"Minimum contacts" is a good term to include in searches if you want to learn more on this.
[0] Note: I am not a lawyer. Near the end of law school I decided I'd rather be a programmer with a decent knowledge of law than a lawyer with a decent knowledge of programming.
[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/310/
Edit: I see others with similar thoughts from further down the scroll
California still S-tier for protecting its land and people.
[1] https://kr.law/news/article-detail/new-yorks-new-automatic-r...
This drives me nuts to read, because it’s usually the same pattern.
Rule -> lobbyists descend -> politicians cave -> carve out that takes away the whole point of the rule -> everyone declares victory
[1] https://collegeplaceapartments.managebuilding.com/Resident/p...
how: by declaring it a law in that area
Course, one should never underestimate the value of a benevolent dictator...
However, in this case it’s because NYC law is typically allowed under NY state law to be stronger (but not weaker) than any corresponding state law.
For example, you couldn't do this in Massachusetts. A city would first have to petition the state for a new law allowing the city to pass such a local law.