6 ms·

I wonder how many new hires pass up Facebook because of ethical concerns. Whats scary is if even internally people are moving departments because of ethics, tha

• pxeboot 9y ago
  There are companies like cigarette makers who's entire business is generally considered unethical, and others like big banks that could be ethical but often aren't. I would expect this to make a big difference in the type of workers they attract. Could Facebook exist without selling as much personal data to advertisers as possible? It doesn't look like it currently, but it is at least hypothetical possible.
• BeetleB 9y ago
  I find a fairly large disconnect between everyone saying people may be uncomfortable working at Facebook and their Glassdoor ratings (probably the highest of any tech company).
• ThemalSpan 9y ago
  I find this issue much more pressing in the defense industry. I (thankfully) have the freedom to choose where I work. I will never willingly work on weapon systems. There are those that do though. Engineers who design things to kill other people. What the actual fuck.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • walshemj 9y ago
    Um you are aware of why SV exists - massive defense spending.
    • r00fus 9y ago
      Right - so questioning "defense" is biting the hand that feeds me? Sorry, I don't follow.
  • eric_b 9y ago
    That's great that you've got a set of principles that you live by, and are able to stick to them. However, your principles are not everyone's principles, and what you consider moral and ethical is not universal. Grellas had a great comment on working for the military industrial complex a few days ago, that I think is worth a read: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16759324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16759324
    • cocacola1 9y ago
      There's some things that are considered immoral or unethical that are fairly universal, especially in developed countries. We're against slavery, rape, murder, etc. Sure, there are perpetrators, but don't wave them off and say "Oh, they just thought differently, give them a break!" We punish them, which is all that can be hoped for. Some things exist in a gray area (for now) so while some people might argue that its righteous or necessary to do something, there's no problem with an opposition to such an ideal shoving it back.
    • andyjohnson0 9y ago
      Lots of words in the linked comment, but it still amounts to making machines that mechanise the process of killing people.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • dsacco 9y ago
        "Lots of words"?! You just reduced the linked comment - a nuanced, neutrally presented argument that there are significant practical and philosophical difficulties inherent to refusing to develop technology for military application - to "lots of words", followed by what is effectively a rhetorical sneer. You don't have to agree with every comment asserting an opposing view, but at least give them a modicum of respect if they put in as much intellectual effort as that one. Why even bother commenting if you're just going to issue a middle-brow dismissal without a substantive critique?
    • tzakrajs 9y ago
  • minhazm 9y ago
    I grew up in Maryland, which probably has the most defense contractors in the country and I decided in college that I didn't want to work in defense for ethical reasons. But there is another side of it, some people genuinely believe that the work they are doing is helping to keep the country safe.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • dmoy 9y ago
    I also used to work in defense, and thankfully not on weapons systems. I would like to point out some mild hilarity in your comment though: Engineer used to (hundreds of years ago) literally mean someone who worked on designing weapons of war and/or defensive structures. How times have changed, hah.
  • refurb 9y ago
    So the fact that Galkovskiy, the engineer who perfected the Katyusha rocket launcher, decided to work on a weapon that played a major role in defeating Nazi Germany offends you?
    • ryandrake 9y ago
      Your argument is not on great footing if you have to reach 70 years back to WW2 in order to find an ethical example of working for the War Industry.
      • dsacco 9y ago
        That argument is actually on strong footing in principle, because only one counterexample is required to demonstrate that something isn't universally true a priori. On the other hand, your argument is weak because 1) you attack a strawman (the commenter did not indicate by their choice of example that it is the most recent), and 2) you did not substantiate why developing military technology then would be different to developing military technology now, in such a way that precludes beneficial use.
  • r00fus 9y ago
    > Engineers who design things to kill other people. What the actual fuck. The popular rationalizations are "it will help save lives of armed services" or "prevent the big terrorist attack". Ther are dozens of reasons people make up to convince themselves and others that it's ok. Judgement as to whether their reasons hold up to the light of day are left as an exercise to reader.
    • walshemj 9y ago
      which you seem to think automatically is exactly the position you believe :-) So you have read Aquinas and have a reasoned argument against the concept of Jus ad bellum - please I am sure hn readers would like to see your argument.
      • r00fus 9y ago
        While my tone may imply it, I don't think everyone will (or needs to) agree with me. The "just war" argument can be taken to places it's not fit for, is all I'm saying. I'm not denying that it has it's place and time. It is simply too powerful/useful to be assumed to be legit all the time.
  • DanBC 9y ago
    Look at an electronics engineer working in aviation. They can work on military stuff, or civilian stuff. It's not clear to me which one will cause more human death. Civillian aircraft is a significant cause of anthropgenic climate change.
  • drdrey 9y ago
    Do you also object to having armed forces?
  • insickness 9y ago
    So let me get this straight: You expect the police and military to use their weapons to defend you. You're willing to pay taxes to pay for those weapons. But you're too ethical to get paid to make them? I just want to be clear where on the spectrum your outrage falls.
    • dbasedweeb 9y ago
      When was the last time the military defended anyone in this country from an external threat? WWII? edit I’m saying that deterrence and defense are different words with different meanings, and you used the word, “defend” somput down the goal posts.
      • insickness 9y ago
        Simply the existence of our military has kept us from being attacked. You're saying we don't need a military?
        • dbasedweeb 9y ago
          The existence of our nuclear arsenal does it without having to invade a country every decade or so. Are you saying we need more than 5K+ nukes to be secure?
• kbd 9y ago
  Count me as one. Who can say if I'd have passed their interview process, but I was recruited by them and immediately said "no thanks", and told their recruiter I didn't like that they subjected their users to psychological experiments without their knowledge[1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinke...
  • asteli 9y ago
    There are a lot of reasons to dislike Facebook, but I don't think their (public) research on the effect of social media on their users is one. You're exposed to psychological experiments on every large website you use, although typically the psychometrics are more limited to things like "did you click the button that gives us money?" instead of questions like "how does the emotional content of the news feed affect our users well being?" Also the fact that they made this research public is, in my eyes, a sign of good faith (in this specific case), and an indication that at least some people in the company take the power they have over their users' health seriously.
    • kbd 9y ago
      I hear you, but can't agree fully. They showed a subset of their users negative posts to see if it negatively impacted their lives. As this could have been expected, they knowingly hurt their own users. I have lots of other reservations about working for Facebook, that was just the one I specifically cited to the recruiter.
    • mattnewton 9y ago
      I buy it was done in good faith, (and it’s unfortunate that the lesson they took away from it may have been just to keep their mouth shut). The lesson here though was that people at Facebook weren’t aware of the responsibility the data they have puts on them. It showed a surprising lack of awareness and care for the users of their platform. Regardless of the intention it was grossly irresponsible to do the experiment in that way. The kind of data that Facebook had and was manipulating is completely more personal and completely different than getting people to click a buy button, a distinction lost on them. We’re talking about people’s relationships with their family, their old friends, and we’re talking about cries for help or compassion that were suppressed to see how it would affect users mood, not just engagement.
• r00fus 9y ago
  I am one. I didn't even reply to the many targeted requests I got from recruiters for FB positions. I'd say at the time several years ago it had more to do with "I don't want to have to re-activate my closed FB just to join the company", never mind having to drink the koolaid.
• jiveturkey 9y ago
  I passed, twice. I went through the whole process, was offered an enormous compensation package (7 figures). I went through it because the entire time I was telling myself if they came back with a big enough offer I'd do it. Turns out I was wrong, I couldn't do it even for what definitely qualifies as "gets paid". This was several years ago, before any specific scandal I can think of. I have constantly questioned whether I made the right move ... it was a lot of money. Now, finally, I have my answer. That said, of course my story is anecdotal and for the most part, I guarantee you that the great majority of folks would jump for a job at FB. At the time I was going through the process, the work environment was very much kool-aid, with kool-aid posters everywhere, "work hard" posters and such. It went past my sad filter straight to laughable. I was on campus a few months ago and that kind of thing is gone or mostly gone. I hear it's a pretty good working environment these days, actually.
• heedlessly3 9y ago
  >I wonder how many new hires pass up Facebook because of ethical concerns haha, i bet very few >If there's a real net effect on their hiring, they'll have to increase salaries to lure people in Facebook already offers the highest compensation among Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Amazon ~~on average~~. They'll be fine.
• draw_down 9y ago
  I doubt the volume of people passing on because of these concerns is high, at least for the moment. I could be wrong, but I suspect this will mostly blow over pretty soon, and I don't think Facebook will be joining the likes of Comcast in terms of reputation any time soon, whether or not I think they deserve it. But also a lot more companies are collecting a lot more data than gets noticed, so in a real sense I think many of us are fooling ourselves with regard to these ethical concerns. We're reacting to news coverage, not ethics. For example I can think of a YC company that's fairly well beloved here, which is hoovering up way more data on the web than people are paying attention to. Perhaps they are doing this to somewhat less nefarious ends than Facebook, but the point is that our industry is only going to continue doing more and more of this, and switching to the devtools team or whatever isn't going to affect that very much.
• stevenwoo 9y ago
  Remember being contacted by the Oculus recruiter, but the association with a white supremacist founder, Palmer Luckey, felt really wrong to me personally. Even after he left it feels tainted.