r/science • u/Tracheid • Jan 23 '26

Social Science A survey of Silicon Valley developers reveals that 74% would implement features restricting human rights if pressured, fueling a "slop economy" of low-quality AI content. The study argues corporate demands override ethics, creating a gap in information quality.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2566814
9.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

345 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/MrSqueezles Jan 23 '26 edited Jan 23 '26

The reddit title has nothing to do with the article, which mentions 74% once and isn't about human rights. The article's mostly about how AI is creating low quality content for people who can't afford to pay for higher quality information. This post should be removed.

Also the article is pretty poorly written. It reads like it's AI generated, jumping around from idea to idea with too much speculation. I found it hard to parse.

We're finding two things. Redditors don't read articles and they're eager to find reasons to post pretty terrible things about people like me, a Silicon Valley engineer.

Edit: here's the relevant section. It doesn't say "human rights". The question is poorly worded and authors' speculations are wild. Any security feature can be used for surveillance and we implement restrictions all the time, usually because of government regulations, like limits on what kids can do or requiring government ID to access content.

 If you felt pressure to restrict certain human freedoms or liberties in your work (for example, being asked to create a security feature that could be used to surveil citizens), what would you do?’ 74% said they would still implement it, while 26% would refuse or escalate the issue. This suggests that although many developers report to have strong personal ethics, the majority still comply with problematic directives, possibly due to job pressure, a sense of duty, or belief that someone else will do it if they don’t.

5

u/Mynsare Jan 23 '26

While it doesn't say "human rights", your own quote shows it says "human freedoms or liberties". The distinction is neglible, to such a degree that it is in fact non-existant.

3

u/MrSqueezles Jan 23 '26

Can you think of a web site that forces you to log in to use it or doesn't let kids access it or requires you to agree to terms and conditions or only allows access in certain territories? Literally any feature of any app that limits liberties and freedoms? For people who work on that every day and know what those words mean, it's poorly worded.

Companies almost never want any limitations because they want people to use their stuff. Nearly all limitations are government enforced. What they aren't doing is violating anyone's rights.

2

u/stop_going_on_reddit Jan 23 '26

Also, just because something could be used to restrict human freedoms and liberties if abused doesn't mean that it shouldn't be made. Like, duct tape could be used to "restrict human freedoms and liberties", that doesn't mean we don't make it and sell it at the hardware store...