Short disclosure, I work as a Software Developer in the US, and often have to keep my negative opinions about the tech industry to myself. I often post podcasts and articles critical of the tech industry here in order to vent and, in a way, commiserate over the current state of tech and its negative effects on our environment and the Global/American sociopolitical landscape.

I'm generally reluctant to express these opinions IRL as I'm afraid of burning certain bridges in the tech industry that could one day lead to further employment opportunities. I also don't want to get into these kinds of discussions except with my closest friends and family, as I could foresee them getting quite heated and lengthy with certain people in my social circles.

Some of these negative opinions include:

  • I think that the industries based around cryptocurrencies and other blockchain technologies have always been, and have repeatedly proven themselves to be, nothing more or less than scams run and perpetuated by scam artists.
  • I think that the AI industry is particularly harmful to writers, journalists, actors, artists, and others. This is not because AI produces better pieces of work, but rather due to misanthropic viewpoints of particularly toxic and powerful individuals at the top of the tech industry hierarchy pushing AI as the next big thing due to their general misunderstanding or outright dislike of the general public.
  • I think that capitalism will ultimately doom the tech industry as it reinforces poor system design that deemphasizes maintenance and maintainability in preference of a move fast and break things mentality that still pervades many parts of tech.
  • I think we've squeezed as much capital out of advertising as is possible without completely alienating the modern user, and we risk creating strong anti tech sentiments among the general population if we don't figure out a less intrusive way of monetizing software.

You can agree or disagree with me, but in this thread I'd prefer not to get into arguments over the particular details of why any one of our opinions are wrong or right. Rather, I'd hope you could list what opinions on the tech industry you hold that you feel comfortable expressing here, but are, for whatever reason, reluctant to express in public or at work. I'd also welcome an elaboration of said reason, should you feel comfortable to give it.

I doubt we can completely avoid disagreements, but I'll humbly ask that we all attempt to keep this as civil as possible. Thanks in advance for all thoughtful responses.

  • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    rabbits in skinner boxes pressing two buttons for a treat is not a far cry from tech workers sitting in cublices pressing 104 buttons for paycheck nor internet users doing it for imaginary internet points.

  • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Much of what we do and have built is overpriced and useless bullshit that doesn't make anybody better off.

    We are inventing solutions and products to manage other solutions and products to manage other solutions and products to...etc etc.

    Websites used to be static HTML pages with some simple graphics, images, and some imbedded stuff. Now, you need to know AWS for your IaaS, Kubernetes to manage your scaling and container orchestration for the thousands of Docker containers that you use to compose your app written in some horrific pile of JavaScript related web stacks like NodeJS, Typescript, React, blah blah blah...

    Then you need a ton of other 3rd party components that handle authentication, databasing, backups, monitoring, signaling, account creation/management, logging, billing, etc etc.

    It's circles within circles within circles, and all that to make a buggy, overpriced, clunky web app.

    Similar is true for IT, massive software suites that most people in the company use 10% of their functionality for stupid shit.

    I'm all for advancing technology, I love technology, it's my job and my hobby.

    But the longer I work in this industry, the more I get this sick feeling that we lost the train long time ago. Buying brand new $1,500 laptops every 3 years so that most of our users can send emails, browse the web, and type up occasional memos.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    ·
    10 hours ago

    No class consciousness. Too many tech workers think they're rugged individuals that can negotiate their own contracts into wealth.

    Working for free on nights and weekends to "hit that deadline" is not good. You're just making the owners rich, and devaluing labor. Even if you own a lot of equity, it's not as much as the owners.

    And then there's bullshit like return to office mandates and people are like "oh no none of us want to do this but there's no organized mechanism to resist"

  • Brodysseus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    ·
    9 hours ago

    On a bright note I'm optimistic that ai bloated garbage and advertising will eventually push a critical mass of people to using decentralized and open source tools, or possibly that non-profits and co-ops will start to spring up to manage more ethical services that could potentially replace the mainstream ones.

    When you're not trying to make some dude disgustingly richer, you don't need a ton of advertising (imo).

    I also think tech workers should unionize. On a darker note, I think outsourcing/offshoring post-covid is going to kill any unions viability. You need bargaining power (withhold your labor) and I'm not sure that will exist for this trade because of how easy it will be to find workers.

  • NotLuigi [they/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    I’m personally very conflicted between my love of computers and the seeming necessity of conflict minerals in their construction. How much coltan is dug up every year just to be shoved into an IoT device whose company will be defunct in six months, effectively bricking the thing? Even if the mining practices were made humane, they wouldn’t be sustainable. My coworkers are very cool for tech workers. Vague anticapitalist sentiments. Hate Elon. But I don’t think they’re ready for this conversation.

    • treadful@lemmy.zip
      ·
      4 hours ago

      How much coltan is dug up every year just to be shoved into an IoT device whose company will be defunct in six months, effectively bricking the thing?

      Man, there's a lot of this. But what really gets me going is electronics that are actually made to be disposable. Motherfuckers hitting a vape with a little LCD screen then littering it. No hope.

  • frauddogg [null/void, undecided]
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    The proliferators of theftbox technology and everyone who ups it/demands it for my career's advancement deserves to get put on an upturned pike, chest-first. To me it's like being a battle rapper: like a battle rapper better not EVER be relying on ghostwriters for their bars, if you need CoPilot to code, you don't deserve to call yourself a programmer; and I was an artist first-- so I don't see any of this LLM bullshit as anything more than tricknology that robbed me and everybody I consider my actual peers (which is to say, not the theftbox touchers).

    I'd rather see a journeyman programmer cracking open the books they taught themselves out of than see them turning to CoPilot.

    • NotLuigi [they/them]
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I’ve introduced my coworkers to the concept of the “copilot pause” where you stop typing and your brain turns off while you wait for copilot to make a suggestion. Several of them can’t unsee it now and have stopped using copilot.

      • frauddogg [null/void, undecided]
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Several of them can’t unsee it now and have stopped using copilot.

        Gigabased; you're doing God's honest work with that

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I think companies that use unethically trained AI (read: basically all gen AI) should be subject to massive litigation, or at least severely damaging boycotts.

    Have mentioned it to a lawyer at work, and he was like “I get it, but uh… fat chance, lol”. Would not dare mention it to the AI-hungry folks in leadership.

  • JakenVeina@lemm.ee
    ·
    16 hours ago

    A very large portion (maybe not quite a majority) of software developers are not very good at their jobs. Just good enough to get by.

    And that is entirely okay! Applies to most jobs, honestly. But there is really NO appropriate way to express that to a coworker.

    I've seen way too much "just keep trying random things without really knowing what you're doing, and hope you eventually stumble into something that works" attitude from coworkers.

    • w3dd1e@lemm.ee
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I read somewhere that everyone is bad at their job. When you’re good at your job you get promoted until you stop being good at your job. When you get good again, you get promoted.

      I know it’s not exactly true but I like the idea.

      • TheDrink [he/him]
        ·
        13 hours ago

        They call that the Peter Principle, and there's at least one Ig Nobel Prize winning study which found that it's better to randomly promote people rather than promote based on job performance.

  • Cysioland@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    The job of a software developer should be regulated like a job of a lawyer/doctor/real engineer, that is a requirement of a degree/formal training and a professional society

  • Lussy [any, hy/hym]
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    I think that the industries based around cryptocurrencies and other blockchain technologies have always been, and have repeatedly proven themselves to be, nothing more or less than scams run and perpetuated by scam artists.

    Can you please expand on this and help me out here?

    I’m coming across people who are true believers in crypto and while I insist it’s a scam and it’s destroying the fucking planet, they go down the rabbit hole into places I can’t follow because I’ve literally not had the interest nor desire to read up on crypto.

    They keep saying that what’s really destroying the planet is the existing financial system with all of the logistics involved with keeping it up as opposed to the cryptofarms adding to the demand on the electric grid. They say that is the goal, to replace the existing financial energy demand with crypto but again, it’s only added to it. Another talking point is that in the case of global climate catastrophe there will be pockets of electricity and cryptoservers somewhere on the planet and that while crypto will remain all the other financial systems will disappear

    They also seem to somehow think it’s the fix to workplace bureaucracy somehow and everything in sight

    Please impart some knowledge.

    • StalinIsMaiWaifu@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Bitcoin and all similar crypto were intentionally designed to be self deflating, it won't replace finance, it's speed running the same problems. The reason almost every country on earth switched to fiat/self inflating currencies is that the best way to invest a deflating currency is to stash it and forget about it.

        • StalinIsMaiWaifu@lemmygrad.ml
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Why deflation is bad: deflation means that as time goes on the same amount of money is worth more. This means that a viable way to invest the money is to hold onto it. Say there is yearly deflation of 4%, that means any investment which has a return lower than 4% is losing you money. Additionally intelligent consumers will cut down on purchases since they can buy more for less later. This leads to economic slowdowns and can self compound if suppliers decide to lower prices.

          This is one reason why countries like inflation, it encourages spending and investment.

          Bitcoin and similar crypto require new coins to validate all previous coins and interactions. Each new coin is exponentially more expensive than the previous. Therefore Bitcoin wealth is extremely stratified to early adopters who built up a collection before the value became this obscene.

          • Lussy [any, hy/hym]
            ·
            11 hours ago

            What about the new sentiment that pushes the switch back to the gold standard, is this a pipe dream? Aren’t there some major backers of this idea who hold it to be viable?

            • StalinIsMaiWaifu@lemmygrad.ml
              ·
              10 hours ago

              Complete pipe dream, commodity backed currency means the currency issuer loses control of inflation/deflation to production of said commodity. For a commodity backed currency to maintain value, the commodity stores owned by the issuer have to grow in proportion to monetary demand (usually GDP growth).

  • Alex@lemmy.ml
    ·
    16 hours ago

    It's one of the reasons I enjoy working on open source. Sure the companies that pay the bills for that maintenance might not be the ones you would work for directly but I satisfy myself that we are improving a commons that everyone can take advantage of.

    • Evilsandwichman [none/use name]
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I told my lib colleague about how many software creators provide their stuff and its source code for free and he could barely get why; I also told him historically many nations just left their research and findings available publicly for people to learn from and he can't grasp why that was either.

      He does truly believe the profit motive is the only (best?) way to advance science.

      • Alex@lemmy.ml
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Yes and no. A lot of the projects I work on the majority of the engineers are funded by companies which have very real commercial drivers to do so. However the fact the code itself is free (as in freedom) means that everyone benefits from the commons and as a result interesting contributions come up which aren't on the commercial roadmap. Look at git, a source control system Linus built because he needed something to maintain Linux in and he didn't like any of the alternatives. It solved his itch but is now the basis for a large industry of code forges with git at their heart.

        While we have roadmaps for features we want they still don't get merged until they are ready and acceptable to the upstream which makes for much more sustainable projects in the long run.

        Interestingly while we have had academic contributions there are a lot more research projects that use the public code as a base but the work is never upstreamed because the focus is on getting the paper/thesis done. Code can work and prove the thing they investigating but still need significant effort to get it merged.