And then some dev can accidentally roll back the changes as part of a bug fix.
Actually we’re having problems with the whole filtering system, it turns out it relies on a library that has some security vulnerabilities and it’s no longer operational.
Or if you must, wait until it breaks on its own, and then refuse to fix it. “Suppressing labour organizing isn’t part of my job description”
Why assume this list is hardcoded? It's possible/likely it's controlled by an API (ultimately through a web frontend) and stored on a machine devs don't even have permission to access... that's pretty par for the course for Amazon. The person who coded that functionality, and the person who has credentials to edit the list are likely not one in the same.
(The exception would be, when the person who coded the API goes on-call. Still there's lots of checks and balances there and any such change would be quickly undone.)
You’re right - diffusion of responsibility and technological layering / obfuscation is a great way to avoid making anybody feel bad about doing something bad. It’s quite possible that this was done in a clever way that avoided anyone implementing anything they felt bad about. But ultimately, you can’t “just doing my job” or “i didn’t know it would be used that way” your way out of the harm your job does - it’s your responsibility to notice and act, preferably proactively, but there’s always retroactively.
Actually we’re having problems with the whole filtering system, it turns out it relies on a library that has some security vulnerabilities and it’s no longer operational.
Or if you must, wait until it breaks on its own, and then refuse to fix it. “Suppressing labour organizing isn’t part of my job description”
I.e. Grow a spine and stand up for what’s right