I couldn’t find much information about this, so here is a blog post of my findings and initial reactions. I’m curious what other people’s thoughts are and especially curious if there is an aspect of ACM I’m not seeing.
ACM
Advancing Computing as a Science & Profession
We see a world where computing helps solve tomorrow’s problems–where we use our knowledge and skills to advance the profession and make a positive impact.
(From https://www.acm.org/about-acm)
OK, that all sounds good to me so far! I agree 100% with ACM’s expressed sentiments.
Browsing around, we can see ACM tackles a number of high visibility public promotions, such as the Turing Award: https://amturing.acm.org/
So far, the ACM seems like a force for good and gets plenty of funding and attention that ACM can put to use for good.
Next, let’s check out ACM’s Ethics Page:
1.1 Contribute to society and to human well-being, acknowledging that all people are stakeholders in computing.
1.2 Avoid harm.
1.3 Be honest and trustworthy.
1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate.
1.5 Respect the work required to produce new ideas, inventions, creative works, and computing artifacts.
1.6 Respect privacy.
1.7 Honor confidentiality.
(From https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics)
I love ACM’s ethics! These ethics exactly line up with mine and most-every other Free Open Source Software developer I know! Infact, the only people I’ve ever met who don’t share the above ethics are people who don’t contribute to open source software.
Surely, the ACM must be all aboard the FOSS train to world goodness and upholding their ethical guidelines, no? Let’s check that out:
[1 real search result; the rest are people with “FOSS” in their last name:]
"Open Source Workshop Explores FOSS in Universities"Opensource.com, March 31, 2014
Universities' application of free and open source software (FOSS) was the focus of an open source workshop held at ACM's annual meeting of its Special Interest Group in Computer Science Education (SIGCSE).
(From https://www.acm.org/search#stq=foss&stp=1)
What?! But ACM seemed so good?! How could ACM not be on board the FOSS train and have zero mentions of FOSS on their website?! (The only mention of FOSS on ACM is a single sponsored article from a different website, shown above.)
To clarify and explain this to people out of the loop about open source software, understand that FOSS is the one and only one way actual, tangible technological progress ever happens on Earth, especially including the sociological aspects of ethical software. Due to this, failure to espouse FOSS exactly equates to failure to promote innovation and exactly equates to failure to promote ethical software.
Put another way, the only evidence supporting ACM’s purported values is a complete lack thereof. In the best case (giving ACM the benefit of the doubt), ACM deserves an award for BETI (my own phrase, Bureaucratic Excellence in Total Ignorance) and funnels their resources at the futile endeavor of encouraging wolves to play nice with chickens in the hen house. In the worst and most assuming case, ACM is well aware their efforts are in vain and is a front for distracting the public’s attention and funding away from more worthwhile causes.
Either way, I presently do not see how the world benefits from ACM given ACM’s inability to uphold their own purported values. Is there some aspect of ACM I’m missing that redeems them? Let me know in the comments
FAQ list:
- What about ACM’s support of research? Infact, ACM actively sabotages research by hiding research articles behind paywalls. Anyway, this doesn’t harm innovation much as the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed CompSci literature is aimless dribble that accomplished exactly nothing. All CompSci innovation and progress happens in open source. The little literature that has contributed significantly to CompSci was all (without exception) published alongside open source code demoing its implementation, oftentimes a feature-complete reference library
Top comments (1)
I might be wrong, but I think ACM is just ... the old-school way. You know, an organization that publishes a scientific journal where content is reviewed. There's an editorial process of some sort. Typically used by scientists - in a way, to have a published paper typically means that paper has gone through some review by other scientists in the field.
And yeah, I think most of these have a paid subscription and usually don't pursue distribution beyond the scientific community. Basically - not that interested in distributing innovation on a global scale. More like an old-school (from before the internet ;) forum for scientists - where they can publish their 'arguments' on a topic.