Why is it ok to collectively hate bankers, people working in big tobacco, salesmen in big pharma and many other industries that we know for being damaging to society, but when it comes to Big Tech we suddenly think "it is uncalled for"?
Facebook is a deplorable company and its leadership is known to have a completely broken moral compass. But why should we hold only the leadership accountable? It is the developers, the product managers, the biz dev people who are actually getting their hands dirty, and you can bet that no one is doing it against their will.
I think it's a stretch to say that most people hate every single person working in those industries.
We don't hate the tellers, we hate the people running the banks and fucking around with our money. We don't shit on Amazon warehouse employees, we shit on the people making their lives hell. In a similar sense, we don't know what this person's role was as a software engineer. It's one thing to discuss the morality of their employer with them, it's another thing to go straight for their jugular and write them out of society entirely just because their resume says, "Facebook".
And, as I said in this same comment chain, I am incredibly "Fuck Facebook" as a whole.
It would be great if every single person had the luxury of making employment decisions primarily based on moral code. The reality of life demonstrates that that is not always viable for everyone.
Edit: Do we assume that all Starbucks employees, even the ones trying to unionize, are anti-union because that's the corporate stance?
A bank teller is not involved in the implementation of the process and systems that define how banks operate. A software engineer is instrumental to how a company operates.
> It would be great if every single person had the luxury of making employment decisions primarily based on moral code.
We don't need to have "every" person in condition to make such choices, but there are plenty of people that can, and these people are failing us. If you are smart, educated, and have enough work ethic to get a job at Facebook as a software developer, you certainly have what it takes to work anywhere else.
>A software engineer is instrumental to how a company operates.
>If you are smart, educated, and have enough work ethic to get a job at Facebook as a software developer, you certainly have what it takes to work anywhere else.
There is a lot to Facebook, and a lot of various internal and external software that requires SWEs. You lament that people in OP's position "are failing us" because they're not doing more to speak out about FB's bullshit, and that they are better-positioned to get a job elsewhere, yet I have only seen you spout negative rhetoric towards OP and make zero effort to understand more.
You haven't bothered asking them what they worked on at FB, nor have you asked them why they are an ex FB engineer. You have no idea if they contributed to fucked up shit or if it's the fucked up shit that made them leave (isn't that departure what you want, after all?).
Your general sentiment isn't wholly incorrect, it's your determination to kick nuance to the curb and paint everyone with a broad, negative brush that is the issue.
> they're not doing more to speak out about FB's bullshit
"Actions speak louder than words".
I care very little about what they are they "speaking out" about. My point is that Facebook's reputation is not new. Its privacy abuses, the practices for exploiting user data for their own benefit, their "move fast and break things" mentality that applies even to things that affect the social fabric of the whole world... everything has been out there in the open for at least 2010, when the first "delete Facebook" campaign came up.
So, it's not like people went to work there without knowing what they signed up for. The were not being offered generous compensation packages to work on ways to make the company less abusive. Their UX designers were not being hired to find ways to make users less dependent on the app. No developer was rewarded for finding a clever ways to determine if the user was a teenager and therefore unable to have access to the website. No data analyst got any bonus because they implemented a system that reduced data collection and increased user privacy. Quite the opposite, actually.
> You have no idea if they contributed to fucked up shit
Anyone working on Facebook at a position that contributes to how the company operates and makes business is by definition working on "fucked up shit". Even the "cool open source projects". Even John Carmack while working at Oculus. Even the people working at WhatsApp who were from the beginning hoping to keep it clear from Facebook influence.
Anyone receiving a paycheck from Facebook should be aware that their money comes at the expense of a lot of societal harm. They might be even okay with it (it is a good paycheck after all) but anyone with a modicum of ethical conscience would simply reject to work there.
I don't disagree with your general statement, but you have no idea when OP worked there, you have no idea why they joined, and you have no idea why they left. Were they there pre-2010? Did they join after thinking maybe it wasn't so bad and then quit when they found out it was?
We don't know, because you won't ask. Again, I agree with your general views on FB. But when there's someone right in front of me, I'm gonna talk to them and find out more before I tell them that they shouldn't be allowed to be a member of society. Life is nuanced, and the degree to which we harbor hatred towards those doing harm is nuanced, too. I will always be initially apprehensive of someone like OP, but at a macro/individual level I will always work to understand more - it's the fair thing to do.
If you want to ignorantly paint everyone with such a broad brush, go ahead.
> I don't disagree with your general statement, but you have no idea when OP worked there, you have no idea why they joined, and you have no idea why they left.
I already responded on another comment: it's not about the individual and it's not about wishing ill of anyone. Hate the sin, but love the sinner, and all that...
In any case, I knew that OP's name was familiar, so I went to look at his history. If you do the same, you will find a comment where he will talk about "being excluded from the banking system". [0] The part he doesn't say (here, but it is on his LinkedIn) is that he was "CTO" on xSigma, which is one of the many "revolutionary DeFI" projects that took a lot of money from gullible fools and now have nothing of value to show for it. Not only that, he also uses that same comment as an opportunity to shill for his next project.
IOW, even though I didn't enter the conversation to "pile on" against the individual, in this particular case the evidence is really stacked against him.
I agree. And, "just following orders" (i.e. "just doing his job") isn't a legal defense to following unlawful orders. Nor should it be a moral defense to doing unethical things just because there's a paycheck involved.
Can you tell us OP's "orders" were, though? Because at this point you're just speculating and assuming the worst. Your comment about people working for unethical companies for a paycheck also comes off as classist and out of touch.
Edit: Hell, they said "ex" engineer. For all we know, they could have very well been there early on, taken issue with what they saw and then left because of that. Yet you and at least two others are assuming the worst and suggesting that they never be allowed to integrate with regular society.
Anyone who's been awake for the past 5 years knows how shitty and unethical a company Facebook is. If they'd been there since the beginning, they could have figured out how lets's say "flexible" Zuckerberg's ethics were. And there are plenty of companies that are ethically benign, if not doing real good in the world. To suggest that people should act ethically, even when money is involved, is not classist. And, if you think it is, consider what "class" a(n ex-) Facebook engineer is likely to fall into. (Hint: the one with the financial means to care about ethics.)
And I will thank you very much to stop putting words in my mouth. I have not suggested that anyone not be able to reintegrate into society. I am, however, suggesting that they pay their dues back to society before doing so.
Tell me: what acts do you feel are justified by "just following orders," and under what circumstances?
Yet still not a single attempt to understand OP's perspective, actions there, time there, or reason for departure. Just an insistence on an immediate straight shot to, "Nope, they have dues that must be repaid no matter what".
Got it.
Edit: And again, I must emphasize nuance. People talented enough to work at a FAANG absolutely can have significant financial issues, outstanding debts, etc. that may make them prioritize finances above ethics. I am surprised that this continuously seems so lost on HN users.
> People talented enough to work at a FAANG absolutely can have significant financial issues, outstanding debts, etc. that may make them prioritize finances above ethics.
You can not use the exceptions to morally justify the general case.
Let's say that 2% of the people took a white-collar job there because of some absurd hardship. What is the excuse of the other 98%?
Make it higher. Let's say that we are living in a bizarro world where 10% of the people that are well educated, talented, energetic and able to go through such a grueling interview process, yet they are facing some type of hardship. What is the excuse of the other 90%?
Also, how long do they need to continue working there until they can resolve their situation? If they took a job just because of the pressure of their hardships, presumably they could settle the score after 2-4 years and then move on to something else? Are these people doing that?
Forgive my bluntness, but I don't know how many times I've said this in this comment chain to you and others - fucking ask them. An ex-FB SWE posted here, someone ate him alive for simply having worked there, you piled on, and now you're rhetorically asking me what their excuse is for taking that job.
I don't know, and I won't pretend to. I've been saying y'all should ask, and here you are wondering, so... ASK OP. Talk to them. Have a conversation. They're right up there!
You seem to think that the point is about the particular individual and their story. It's not. I'm not "piling on" anything.
My point is that we collectively criticize the leadership on business like Facebook (or any "FAANG" for that matter), but we give a pass on all people that go work there. My point is that we should (collectively) start looking at them as enablers and also be responsible for all the damage that the companies have done.
Instead of saying "how cool, Johnny is making 400k/year to work at Google, I wish I could do the same", we should be saying "What's up with Johnny that he needed to sell his soul for $400k/year?"
You're coming off a bit more aggressive than this conversation necessitates.
My response to your "consideration" is in my edit. Asking one to "consider" something is just that; asking them to think about it. It does not ask for a response (yet I did give you one while you were chastizing me for posting while you edited yours).
>what acts do you feel are justified by "just following orders," and under what circumstances?
There is a theme here - nuance. I've worked (past tense, and I'll have you know that part of the reason for my departure was my disagreement with this partnership) with FB as a partner in the past, and I am well aware of the incredibly wide variety of roles there. This is exactly why I am insisting that we talk to OP and learn more before we decide that they're a stain on society, need rehabilitation, whathaveyou.
Mostly the spying on people against their wishes part, then exploiting this data in commercial purposes. Even if you aren't a member, Facebook keeps a shadow profile on you, so it's next level surveillance.
