I'm not an expert in ethics but to me this stance goes too far. The Internet in general is also used to spread medical conspiracy theories. If I work on network switches is that also unethical? Compilers? The job of regulating this sort of stuff is the government and the courts. There are laws concerning privacy, and speech, and companies need to operate within those laws. I would say an ethical engineer should not break the law or help the company they're working for break the law.
I would interpret IEEE's statement as it affects a single engineer to e.g. ensure that they are following best practices in protecting user information, e.g. if an engineer is asked by Meta to take some shortcut that exposes people's information publicly that would grounds for refusing to do that on an ethical basis.
That said as an individual you ofcourse have a choice where you want to work. I can see someone not wanting to work for Meta. I'm sure there are many ways in which Meta also supports safety and health, e.g. some (a lot) of useful and good information is also available on the platform. We should look at the totality of the company's impact, not just one aspect of it. That said I agree that hate amplification and disinformation on the Internet is of concern. It should be up to governments to take action on that. I think with Meta and other Internet companies they have immunity in the US for being sued over content others publish on their platforms.
One reason to have an ethics code is that the law can’t possibly cover everything. Law is read in a fairly hostile manner (in the sense that people are looking for technicalities and loopholes), and also has to concern itself with enforceability, jurisdictions, etc.
Ethics are self-enforced mostly, and they are to be followed in good faith. An ethical engineer should not break the law, but nobody should break the law, that’s the bare minimum for existing in society.
If you thought the internet was overwhelmingly harmful and had little-to-no redeeming value, yes, working on network switches would be unethical.
> I would interpret IEEE's statement as it affects a single engineer to e.g. ensure that they are following best practices in protecting user information, e.g. if an engineer is asked by Meta to take some shortcut that exposes people's information publicly that would grounds for refusing to do that on an ethical basis.
I don’t see any particular reason to think they just mean exposing personal information to the public, when they talk about protecting privacy. I’d tend to assume Meta, like every other entity, is something we ought to protect people’s privacy from.
It is up to you to interpret the meaning personally. But nobody is going to punish you if you don’t obey the code, so why look for an out? Just don’t follow it.
Most unethical things are also illegal. I think the ethical code is reinforcing the idea of personal responsibility. If you're an engineer and you're asked to build a bridge and cut corners that's unethical behavior, and it's illegal and you will actually be punished in the event the bridge collapses. Being an ethical engineer in this context is pointing out the bridge is not designed properly and might collapse, refusing to sign that plan, and making a complaint with the right authorities. Bribery or other similar conducts are also illegal and unethical. I guess there may be some gray areas that are not illegal but are unethical by some morals. I guess an example might be a gambling company or a tobacco company. Tricky.
I would interpret IEEE's statement as it affects a single engineer to e.g. ensure that they are following best practices in protecting user information, e.g. if an engineer is asked by Meta to take some shortcut that exposes people's information publicly that would grounds for refusing to do that on an ethical basis.
That said as an individual you ofcourse have a choice where you want to work. I can see someone not wanting to work for Meta. I'm sure there are many ways in which Meta also supports safety and health, e.g. some (a lot) of useful and good information is also available on the platform. We should look at the totality of the company's impact, not just one aspect of it. That said I agree that hate amplification and disinformation on the Internet is of concern. It should be up to governments to take action on that. I think with Meta and other Internet companies they have immunity in the US for being sued over content others publish on their platforms.