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.

  • JakenVeina@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • daddyjones@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s definitely the majority. The problem is that a lot of tech developments, new language features and Frameworks then pander to this lack of skill and then those new things become buzzwords that are required at most new jobs.

      So many things could be got rid of if people would just write decent code in the first place!

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I actually would go further and say that collectively, we are terrible at what we do. Not every individual, but the combination of individuals, teams, management, and business requirements mean that collectively we produce terrible results. If bridges failed at anywhere near the rate that software does, processes would be changed to fix the problem. But bugs, glitches, vulnerabilities etc. are rife in the software industry. And it just gets accepted as normal.

      It is possible to do better. We know this, from things like the stuff that sent us to the moon. But we’ve collectively decided not to do better.

      • candyman337@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The tech industry is so very capitalistic, so many companies see devs as min max churn machines, tech debt? Nah FEATURES! AI! MODERNITY! That new dev needs to be trained in the basics and best practices? Sorry that’s not within scope

      • folkrav@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Main difference is, a bridge that fails physically breaks, takes months to repair, and risks killing people. Your average CRUD app… maybe a dev loses a couple or hours figuring out how to fix live data for the affected client, bug gets fixed, and everybody goes on with their day.

        Remember that we almost all code to make products that will make a company money. There’s just no financial upside to doing better in most cases, so we don’t. The financial consequences of most bugs just aren’t great enough to make the industry care. It’s always about maximizing revenue.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          maybe a dev loses a couple or hours figuring out how to fix live data for the affected client, bug gets fixed, and everybody goes on with their day.

          Or thousands of people get stranded at airports as the ticketing system goes down or there is a data breach that exposes millions of people’s private data.

          Some companies have been able to implement robust systems that can take major attacks, but that is generally because they are more sensitive to revenue loss when these systems go down.

          • folkrav@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not sure if you’re agreeing or trying to disprove my previous comment - IMHO, we are saying the exact same thing. As long as those stranded travelers or data breaches cost less than the missed business from not getting the product out in the first place, from a purely financial point of view, it makes no sense to withhold the product’s release.

            Let’s be real here, most developers are not working on airport ticketing systems or handling millions of users’ private data, and the cost of those systems failing isn’t nearly as dramatic. Those rigid procedures civil engineers have to follow come from somewhere, and it’s usually not from any individual engineer’s good will, but from regulations and procedures written from the blood of previous failures. If companies really had to feel the cost of data breaches, I’d be willing to wager we’d suddenly see a lot more traction over good development practices.

            • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m just trying to highlight that there is a fuzzier middle ground than a lot of programmers want to admit. Also, a lot of regulations for that middle ground haven’t been written; the only attention to that middle ground have been when done companies have seen failures hit their bottom line.

              • folkrav@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not saying the middle ground doesn’t exist, but that said middle ground visibly doesn’t cause enough damage to businesses’ bottom line, leading to companies having zero incentive to “fix” it. It just becomes part of the cost of doing business. I sure as hell won’t blame programmers for business decisions.

                • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It just becomes part of the cost of doing business.

                  I agree with everything you said except for this. Often times, it isn’t the companies that have to bear the costs, but their customers or third parties.

  • graycube@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    1 year ago

    Most of the high visibility “tech bros” aren’t technical. They are finance bros who invest in tech.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is more than self interest, self respecting tech workers would have refused to create our current panopticon-skinnerbox if they weren’t at the mercy of the tech lords. Seniority based hiring and firing, that has to be demand number one, number 2 is layoff recall lists 5 years long.

  • Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The whole “tech industry” naming is bulllshit, there is more technology let’s say in composite used to build an aircraft wing or in a surgerical robots, than in yet another mobile app showing you ads

    The whole tech sector also tend to be over evaluated on the stock market. In no world Apple is worth 3 trillion while coca cola or airbus are worth around 200 billions

    • chobeat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      All software should be released as a common good that cannot be captured by corporations. Otherwise it’s just free labor for Amazon, Google and Facebook

  • Mr Fish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think most people who actually work in software development will agree with you on those things. The problem is that it’s the marketing people and investors who disagree with you, but it’s also them who get to make the decisions.

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year 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.

  • d00phy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not a software dev, but for me it’s the constant leap from today’s “next best thing” to tomorrow’s. Behind the Bastards did an episode on AI, and his take resonated with me. Particularly his Q&A session with some AI leaders at, I think, CES not long ago. When the new hotness gets popular, an obscene amount of money is paired with the “move fast and break things” attitude in a rush to profit. This often creates massive opportunities for grifters as legislators are mind numbing slow to react to these new technologies. And when regulations are finally passed (or more recently, allowed by the oligarchs), they’re often written to protect the billionaires (read: “job creators”) more than the common customer. Everyone’s bought into the idea that slow and methodical stifles innovation. At least the people funding and regulating these things have.

  • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    CEOs and all management suite are mostly useless except for making the business worse for the employees and customers for the sake of investors.

    Most employees are perfectly fine with slow and steady growth instead of maximizing it.

    • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s interesting the preconceived notions over managements usefulness and the actual role a CEO plays in a company. I’ve had a lot of conversations with people over the years and everyone just expects that it “has to be this way or it won’t work”. Like every admin position is critical or the company will fail, completely disregarding that most of those positions didn’t exist before and the company ran just fine.

      There’s a lot of misinformation over what their actual job entails. Management is mostly just one big “telephone” game (been on all sides of it, got out just in time before it warped my perception of life). The original role of being support is completely absent in their duties as our society and culture has changed. People also think a co-op would never work because you need a big shot CEO who runs the company and makes all the decisions (they don’t, plenty of examples in reality).

      It’s kinda funny to hear a lot of the tech people on here mention imposter syndrome. Every person in administration has this feeling deep down inside that they aren’t important and they have no clue what they’re doing. The only difference is everyone in the C-suite pat’s eachother on the back and help build each other’s ego up so they can just pretend they don’t feel it. It’s why people in these positions get so defensive and irate if you start dissecting their actual duties and importance. They’ve been reassured everyday that what they do is integral when it’s suppose to be the managers job to make his employees feel that way.

  • Lightor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Please stop with the AI pushing. It’s a solution looking for a problem, it’s a waste in 90% of the cases.

  • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year 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.

  • nutsack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    companies don’t know how to interview. i don’t need someone to walk me through a sorting algorithm. i need someone who will be responsive, and interested in the problems we actually face.

  • LenielJerron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    When I was in undergrad I did debate, and a term that was used to describe the debate topics was “a solution in need of a problem”. I think that that very often characterizes the tech industry as a whole.

    There is legitimately interesting math going on behind the scenes with AI, and it has a number of legitimate, if specialized, use-cases - sifting through large amounts of data, etc. However, if you’re an AI company, there’s more money to be made marketing to the general public and trying to sell AI to everyone on everything, rather than keeping it within its lane and letting it do the thing that it does well, well.

    Even something like blockchain and cryptocurrency is built on top of somewhat novel and interesting math. What makes it a scam isn’t the underlying technology, but rather the speculation bubbles that pop up around it, and the fact that the technology isn’t being used for applications other than pushing a ponzi scheme.

    For my own opinions - I don’t really have anything I don’t say out loud, but I definitely have some unorthodox opinions.

    • I think that the ultra-convenient mobile telephone, always on your person at all times, has been a net detriment societally speaking. That is to say, the average iPhone user would be living a happier, more fulfilling, more authentic life if iPhones had not become massively popular. Modern tech too often substitutes genuine real-in-person interactions for online interactions that only approximate it. The instant gratification of always having access to all these opinions at all times has created addictions to social media that are harder to quit than cocaine (source: I have a friend who successfully quit cocaine, and she said that she could never quit instagram). The constantly-on GPS results in people not knowing how to navigate their own towns; if you automate something without learning how to do it, you will never learn how to do it. While that’s fine most of the time, there are emergency situations where it just results in people being generally less competent than they otherwise would have been.

    • For the same reason, I don’t like using IDEs. For example when I code in java, the ritual of typing “import javafx.application.Application;” or whatever helps make me consciously aware that I’m using that specific package, and gets me in the headspace. Plus, being constantly reminded of what every single little thing does makes it much easier for me at least to read and parse code quickly. (But I also haven’t done extensive coding since I was in undergrad).

    • Microsoft Office Excel needs to remove February 29th 1900. I get that they have it so that it’s backwards compatible with some archaic software from the 1990s; it’s an annoying pet peeve.

    • Technology is not the solution to every problem, and technology can make things worse as much as it can make things better. Society seems to have a cult around technological progress, where any new tech is intrinsically a net good for society, and where given any problem the first attempted solution should be a technological one. But for example things like the hyperloop and tesla self-driving cars and so forth are just new modern technology that doesn’t come anywhere near as close to solving transportation problems as just implementing a robust public transit network with tech that’s existed for 200 years (trains, trolleys, busses) would.

    • ahal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the person I will report to can’t code, I pass on the contract

      I get this, it’s really frustrating to have a clueless manager. But to me, a bigger problem is the reverse.

      I’d rather have a manager with no technical ability and excellent people skills, than a manager with excellent technical ability but no people skills. The latter is all too common in my experience.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the person I will report to can’t code, I pass on the contract.

      I feel like that’s just a preference regarding jobs.

      Part of the job of being the chief coder is having to translate back and forth between the people doing the coding and the people paying them to do so. You need a lot of high level technical knowledge to do the job well, but you aren’t going to be technical in application.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s only if the company specializes in one type of software.

          It is common in larger companies or companies that need software but aren’t software companies where you are going to hit a manager with little technical talent, let alone less technical talent in what you’re working on.

    • toynbee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      My current employer was founded on the basis of the first two statements. They said they would never hire anyone who didn’t have a background in tech. Even the HR manager lady who processed my onboarding had a history of coding and I’ve never before seen an individual who had been in both industries.

      Unfortunately, since I started, my company was bought by a bigger company who was then themselves bought by a bigger company. Though my employer still has one of the best workforces I’ve ever seen, it seems we no longer hold the “tech background only” policy.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      My secret sexist opinion is: Fill your DBA team with women, lead by a woman, and then just stand back and turn them loose. I absolutely love all female DBA teams because they kick fucking ass always. [edit I’m a cis wm 50s for context]

      Every woman developer or QA person I’ve ever worked with has been an absolute rockstar.

      My theory is that this is because the industry is sexist enough that all the women who aren’t like that don’t find it worth their while to persist at it and find other careers. : (