> As an another analogy (as you brought one up) I'm not supporting banks and financial institutions that support the weapons industry, even if that bank provide

> As an another analogy (as you brought one up) I'm not supporting banks and financial institutions that support the weapons industry, even if that bank provides the highest interest. If you live in the US or the UK and pay your taxes, you are by this logic supporting weapons manufacturing and selling it to Saudi Arabia[1][2]. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/saudi-arabia-arms-sales-yemen-war-uk-government-us-donald-trump-obama-aid-a7643066.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/saudi-arabia-arms-sales-... [2] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-us-100-billion-arms-deal-saudi-arabia-a7733871.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-us-10... > Facebook does not have a cure for cancer. Perhaps if all the intellectual workforce that is now invoked to track users and please advertisers would be used to search for a cure instead, we would have a cure by now. The point is not about Facebook's medical research capabilities, the point is: if an entity you disagree with would produce an invention so useful that it could save lives, would you still reject their invention? > By using and supporting Facebook's open-source projects, you are supporting their bad practices indirectly. Separation is not really possible. In your opinion one organization cannot do both good and bad things at the same time?