Do you think that the ethical reputation of a company impacts whether graduating computer science students are willing to take a job there?
This was the topic of @CUBoulder CS alum Ella Sarder's honors thesis, now published as a poster at #CSCW2022. Here's what we found... 🧵
This was an exploratory study (and we're working on a larger-scale survey as a follow up!); she interviewed 12 graduating students about factors they consider in the job search, how they define a “good” or “bad” company to work for, and how ethics education impacts their choices.
Some participants expressed a sense of powerless regarding their ability to change unethical practices - which might result in deciding not to take a job there, or might result in thinking it's the same everywhere, so they might as well consider their own self interest.
Trade-offs were a common theme. Though many participants reported valuing ethics highly, almost all indicated they would be willing to overlook most ethical issues for a high salary.
We wonder (for future work) how this might be impacted further by student loans or visa status.
When asked about the value of ethical knowledge in job applications, no participants believed knowledge of ethical issues would help them secure a job.
Some thought that expressing their knowledge of or care for ethical issues would actively result in them NOT getting a job.
We think these findings are reflective of both trends in "techlash" and perceptions of the tech industry, and in students’ perception of their ability to effect change. We also suspect negative trade-offs disproportionately impact students from historically excluded groups.
I've been thinking about this a lot, and recognize what a hard problem it is, but "ethics" education in computer science absolutely needs to include discussion of how to raise ethical concerns and speak to power, and how to engage in resistance.
You can read the entire short paper "Entering the Techlash: Student Perspectives on Ethics in Tech Job Searches" here: dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/1…
And thank you to @OmidyarNetwork for providing some support for this project and our next steps!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ok so
it appears that the new strategy for advocating for changes to Twitter's content moderation policy is to do things that directly impact Twitter's owner
this seems... not ideal
Also I've been thinking a lot lately about how it's harder to imagine harms to people not like yourself. This is a particularly good example of not seeing a potential harm (and thinking about how to mitigate it) until it impacts you.
I'm playtesting #Mastodon explainers. Let me know if this makes sense please. :)
Imagine if your gmail account meant you could ONLY email gmail users. That would be silly! Especially if you don't want Google to have all your data. So why are social networks like that? (1/?)
Mastodon isn't a platform- it's a protocol for anyone to run a platform that connects to others. So e.g., I'm on an "instance" set up by a prof friend, but my feed (like your Facebook feed or your Twitter feed) includes content from anyone I follow across any instance. (2/?)
Because if Facebook or Twitter go out of business tomorrow, or you decided to leave, you'd lose everything. But imagine instead if you decided to leave Twitter and go to Facebook instead, you could take your network with you--and also still talk to anyone still on Twitter. (3/?)
I think this represents a common misconception about Mastodon! The entire point of federated social media is that it isn't a silo. On Twitter you are in a Twitter silo. On a Mastodon instance you can interact with anyone on ANY instance.
That said, right now Mastodon *feels* like a silo because there aren't many people there - so yep, it isn't a global community. But neither was Twitter at the beginning. If we can only be on social media where everyone else *already* is, then we'll be held hostage forever.
To be clear, I think the "global community" part is really important for scientists, which is why I'm not leaving Twitter right now. (But I would very much like to be *able* to.) This is my quote from the article that precipitated this discussion:
The ML ethics team at Twitter has done amazing work. e.g. they were *auditing their own systems* and *publishing papers about it* and generally making me feel better about everything happening there.
Anyone should know by now that firing your ethics leads is not a good look.
I've been completely baffled by everything happening the past few days and now I'm just convinced that Elon Musk is doing a speed run for destroying a tech company.
Two years ago we published a paper about online community migration, and I think the findings and recommendations are relevant to what I'm seeing right now on Twitter. Especially the barriers and challenges to relocating (and maybe some solutions). 🧵cmci.colorado.edu/~cafi5706/CSCW…
Here are some bad things that are likely to happen when people pack their bags and leave a platform: (1) content loss (which *might* be less of a big deal on a social platform like Twitter compared to a content creation platform like YouTube)
(2) fragmented communities - when some people move and some people don’t, the community necessarily splinters, or even “disintegrates” all together (3) social changes - culture and norms of a community will inevitably shift in reaction to the broader culture of the new platform
"The goal of a [program committee] has become to destroy rather than to develop." sigbed.org/2022/08/22/the…
Please bear with me; I'm about to compare the toxic culture of rejection in computer science peer review to a high school orchestra competition. 🧵
A friend told me a story about a low income high school orchestra participating in a competition. A cellist who doesn't own her own cello & had never had a private lesson started a solo. After 1 minute a judge (a college music prof) said "you can stop, I don't need to hear more."
First of all, what an unnecessary, jerk move. And it wouldn't have been surprising if that girl never touched a cello again.
But the point is, competitions with a couple of "winners" and mostly "losers" makes us look for losers. If we find a reason to reject, we can stop there.