Will Amazon Ban “Ethics”? | The Business Ethics Blog

A new report from The Intercept indicates that a new in-residence messaging app for Amazon staff members could ban a very long string of words and phrases, together with “ethics.” Most of the text on the listing are types that a disgruntled staff would use — conditions like “union” and “compensation” and “pay increase.” In accordance to a leaked doc reviewed by The Intercept, one particular attribute of the messaging app (however in improvement) would be “An automatic word monitor would also block a assortment of terms that could stand for prospective critiques of Amazon’s doing work problems.” Amazon, of system, is not accurately a enthusiast of unions, and has used (again, per the Intercept) a ton of dollars on “anti-union consultants.”

So, what to say about this naughty listing?

On a person hand, it is effortless to see why a corporation would want not to give personnel with a device that would enable them do a thing not in the company’s curiosity. I signify, if you want to manage — or even only complain — using your Gmail account or Signal or Telegram, that is one issue. But if you want to obtain that aim by making use of an app that the firm delivers for interior enterprise purposes, the organization probably has a teensy bit of a authentic criticism.

On the other hand, this is obviously a undesirable look for Amazon — it is unseemly, if not unethical, to be practically banning employees from utilizing words and phrases that (probably?) indicate they are doing one thing the organization doesn’t like, or that possibly just indicate that the company’s work criteria are not up to snuff.

But really, what strikes me most about this strategy is how ham-fisted it is. I mean, key phrases? Very seriously? Really do not we currently know — and if we all know, then undoubtedly Amazon is aware of — that social media platforms make possible a lot, much additional refined ways of influencing people’s conduct? We’ve already observed the use of Facebook to manipulate elections, and even our feelings. In comparison to that, this meant record of naughty terms appears like Dr Evil striving to outfit sharks with laser-beams. What unions should really actually be worried about is employer-presented platforms that never explicitly ban text, but that subtly form user practical experience dependent on their use of those text. If Cambridge Analytica could plausibly attempt to impact a national election that way, could not an employer rather believably purpose at shaping a unionization vote in equivalent fasion?

As for banning the word “ethics,” I can only shake my head. The capacity to converse brazenly about ethics — about values, about rules, about what your enterprise stands for, is regarded by most students and consultants in the realm of enterprise ethics as fairly basic. If you just cannot discuss about it, how very likely are you to be to be able to do it?

(Thanks to MB for pointing me to this tale.)