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

A new report from The Intercept indicates that a new in-residence messaging application for Amazon staff members could ban a lengthy string of phrases, such as “ethics.” Most of the terms on the list 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, just one characteristic of the messaging application (nevertheless in improvement) would be “An automatic phrase monitor would also block a assortment of conditions that could stand for possible critiques of Amazon’s working disorders.” Amazon, of class, is not specifically a enthusiast of unions, and has used (once again, for every the Intercept) a lot of funds on “anti-union consultants.”

So, what to say about this naughty list?

On 1 hand, it is straightforward to see why a company would want not to give employees with a resource that would assist them do a little something not in the company’s curiosity. I suggest, if you want to arrange — or even basically complain — employing your Gmail account or Sign or Telegram, that’s a single detail. But if you want to achieve that aim by applying an application that the organization gives for interior small business uses, the company it’s possible has a teensy little bit of a legitimate complaint.

On the other hand, this is plainly a terrible appear for Amazon — it is unseemly, if not unethical, to be actually banning workers from working with text that (maybe?) indicate they’re performing some thing the company does not like, or that probably just point out that the company’s work specifications are not up to snuff.

But seriously, what strikes me most about this system is how ham-fisted it is. I indicate, keyword phrases? Critically? Really don’t we already know — and if we all know, then certainly Amazon is aware — that social media platforms make attainable a lot, much more subtle strategies of influencing people’s conduct? We have presently viewed the use of Facebook to manipulate elections, and even our emotions. In contrast to that, this supposed checklist of naughty words appears to be like Dr Evil making an attempt to outfit sharks with laser-beams. What unions must truly be concerned about is employer-furnished platforms that don’t explicitly ban phrases, but that subtly condition user experience centered on their use of individuals text. If Cambridge Analytica could plausibly attempt to impact a countrywide election that way, couldn’t an employer pretty believably intention at shaping a unionization vote in related fasion?

As for banning the word “ethics,” I can only shake my head. The capability to talk brazenly about ethics — about values, about principles, about what your corporation stands for, is regarded by most students and consultants in the realm of business enterprise ethics as fairly fundamental. If you simply cannot speak about it, how most likely are you to be to be ready to do it?

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