>This is like saying that that ethics is equivalent to a category of personal biases, that they are therefore arbitrary and completely personal, and that theref

>This is like saying that that ethics is equivalent to a category of personal biases, that they are therefore arbitrary and completely personal, and that therefore nobody has any right to use their judgment about the ethical content of the actions of other people. That wasn’t my point at all. There’s a general trend on HN to insult tech companies as being immoral, unethical, evil, etc. just because you hide behind the word ethics doesn’t mean your personal bias doesn’t exist. You’re arguing a strawman and taking this off topic, but nice try ;) My question still stands - what companies are more ethical than FB? You can point to any other industry, and more than likely we could discover examples of that company performing activities in its personal interests or interests of its shareholders that aren’t moral but still legal. >...in other ethics related news, a UN report has recently declared that 1 million species are in danger of extinction. Will we say that concern for this also is a relative, personal bias? Your example doesn’t make sense in this context at all. 1 million species being in danger is a big deal assuming there’s scientific evidence. For the op to state that FB is an unethical company and therefore someone not take an opportunity to work for them is completely different and an apples and orange comparison at best. What makes them unethical and is that a bar we apply consistently to other employers or just to the companies we don’t like?