3 ms·

I'm shocked that so many bright, talented engineers go to work for Companies like Google and Amazon and Facebook. While I'm glad some see the light about the re

I'm shocked that so many bright, talented engineers go to work for Companies like Google and Amazon and Facebook. While I'm glad some see the light about the real mission of these companies (it's not about "connecting people", "providing delightful customer experiences", "doing no evil" or any of that BS) and ultimately quit, but what concerns me is how so many clearly incredibly bright and talented people are able to ignore so many red flags and go to work for these companies. Google and Facebook are about acquiring personal data to sell ads, that's it! You're not adding value, no matter what interesting, complicated, bleeding edge, world-class problems you're solving. The world is worse off for all of it, and you're helping.

joeys7 6y ago
Back when I was in university, I feel like they really brainwashed me to think these tech companies were making the world a better place. I was too naive. I think a lot of young software engineers started out like me. There’s also the fact that these companies are so big, they have a lot of variation inside them. For example at Amazon Music, there really isn’t a lot of evilness there, it’s just getting people to pay up for music streaming. Still some unfairness in the music industry for smaller artists, but that’s often the labels stepping on them. A lot of us at Amazon knows this company is kinda evil now. I was thinking about resigning over these recent firings, but another activist convinced me to stay so we can continue pushing the company to be less evil. Essentially if we are willing to resign from a job, we have nothing to lose so we can take bigger activism risks.
- pm90 6y ago
  Same. When I was in college, all my peers talked about FAANG's in glowing terms. Doesn't help that these companies often recruit heavily from Universities, so you have alum networks that talk about how great the companies are etc. Its quite an evil genius. When people finally do get a job, they often realize its not always the cool shit that they heard about; most often than not its some uncool shit that brings in a ton of money. This isn't to discount the amazing engineering work that these orgs tend to do. But look at their workforce numbers and tell me with a straight face that all their engineers are working on solving tough engineering problems and not just a cog in the optimization machine.
  - pathseeker 6y ago
    That's just because 5+ years ago Amazon/Facebook/Google weren't "giant evil shit-lords" so-to-speak. They were cool even among industry folks. It wasn't long ago that having Google on your resume meant something was special about you. Facebook/Google/Amazon aren't really cool in colleges anymore either.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
vdnkh 6y ago
I think bright, talented engineers also want to get paid for their efforts. When FAANG pays 2-3x most other companies, it doesn't always make sense to go elsewhere.
- ssklash 6y ago
  Sure, but the idea is about why they pay more. They can afford to, because of how massively lucrative monetizing personal data is. Doing it at scale is hard, and they need the best talent. My comment was about how the best telnet sometimes seem to ignore the hard reality of what they are helping a company do in favor of enjoying the excellent pay and focusing on the admittedly interesting problems they are solving. An intentional effort by those companies to seem glamorous and recruit young engineers out of college makes it worse, as mentioned above.
oneepic 6y ago
You can say that, but people gain a lot from working there. There are many pluses to working at these companies. Pay/benefits/relocation packages, provided on-the-job training and free access to a lot of technical courses, relatively-effective engineering practices (ethics are a separate issue), little-to-no dress code, free food, technical managers (not nontechnical ones) and a nice name on the resume when you leave, to name a few. I'm not saying they are unique to these co's, just that these co's tend to offer all of the above. Plus, oftentimes the job app requirements are pretty general and loose, as opposed to all those shitty firms that want entry-level engineers to have graduated in the past 6 mos, and have experience with 10 different Javascript frameworks. (And then underpay them and work the hell out of them.) I know I saw a lot of those when I was leaving college in 2017/18.
- ssklash 6y ago
  > ethics are a separate issue They're kinda the main thing I'm talking about here. Everyone knows perfectly well you can gain huge amounts by working at FAANG companies, that's not in doubt. The question is at what cost, do the people doing it see their companies for what they are, and why do people continue to work there if they do. I'm sure being CEO of Phillip Morris or Palantir or Exxon-Mobile is quite lucrative, but I'll pass. Many people just need a job, and I don't begrudge anyone taking a job they need to support themselves or their families. But the kind of talent FAANG companies hire can likely work anywhere and are higher up the socioeconomic ladder. They have choices most others don't. And too many, in my opinion, work to get people to click ads and sell people's data.
  - oneepic 6y ago
    My point is that it's irresponsible to reduce these companies to their ads and data practices, because they also tend to be great places to work and tend to offer a positive culture and benefits. You should consider everything before deciding to work there.
    - ssklash 6y ago
      I'm not sure I see how having a great work environment and culture and compensation package justifies helping a company perform its primary function, if that primary function is harmful. I'm not reducing companies like Facebook and Google to their data and ad practices, those practices are their core business model. It's literally why they exist, despite what they may say. GM makes cars, Facebook and Google collect personal information to better sell ads. The awesome benefits and coworkers and cool problems and neat tech don't change why those companies exist. I'm simply questioning why people still work there, assuming they know what they're helping build. Ad tech. That no one wants or needs.
diob 6y ago
I feel like Maslow's hierarchy of needs addresses why so many choose to work there.
BrandonM 6y ago
I think that's taking things a bit too far. Of course, the ultimate goal of every for-profit corporation is to make a profit. But along the way, most of them are providing value to society. So much of the Internet as we know it is built atop AWS. Many people are able to shelter in place with minimal impact largely because of the groundwork laid by Amazon, during more than a decade of not being profitable. That includes ordering equipment to work from home, ordering home goods to avoid going out, running the compute infrastructure that powers teleconferencing tools like Zoom, providing entertainment options through Prime Video, etc. etc. How many families are staying in touch through Facebook Messenger, video chats, and just plain old photos? How many grandparents feel less alone because they can see their family members and a wealth of photos every day? How many old friends reconnect because Facebook exists? Google makes the world better in so many ways that I can't even pretend to address it exhaustively. I personally have been able to experience remote places thanks to Flights, Translate, and Maps. I use Search hundreds of times a week... the world's knowledge is more accessible than ever before thanks in part to Google's efforts to organize it. I think it's totally right to call out companies where their behavior is poor. I think we need to demand—both through social pressure and through laws—that companies respect privacy, treat workers well, and minimally impact the environment. But I think it's taking it a step too far to claim that the world is worse off for the effort of FAANG employees. Even those working on ads... if there's no ad revenue, none of those other benefits exist.
- ssklash 6y ago
  I agree that we should demand that companies should respect privacy. And if they did, Facebook and Google would cease to exist, or have never existed in the first place. They are surveillance capitalism, pure and simple. They may make Gmail free and make it seem like a photo sharing service exists to help grandparents connect with their kids, but those are simply hooks to lure people in for their data. They have all sorts of cool, free services to disguise the fact that they are looking for your data. No one denies the usefulness of Maps or search or FB messenger. But to pretend that Google and Facebook do it out of the goodness of their hearts or because they care about "connecting people" is naive and exactly what their messaging is intended to convey. Amazon at least provides useful services. They do it on the backs of underpaid and poorly treated warehouse workers, but Prime shipping is sweet! Treatment of those interested in unionizing is about the biggest indicator of a company's values, and Amazon is quite clear on that point. My main point overall is why work for a company like that when there are others doing the good things FAANG companies pretend to be providing?
francisofascii 6y ago
What companies should they work for instead? Is there a list of companies that are more moral than those you listed? Maybe the alternatives are worse. How do you even know?

joeys7 6y ago

Back when I was in university, I feel like they really brainwashed me to think these tech companies were making the world a better place. I was too naive. I think a lot of young software engineers started out like me. There’s also the fact that these companies are so big, they have a lot of variation inside them. For example at Amazon Music, there really isn’t a lot of evilness there, it’s just getting people to pay up for music streaming. Still some unfairness in the music industry for smaller artists, but that’s often the labels stepping on them. A lot of us at Amazon knows this company is kinda evil now. I was thinking about resigning over these recent firings, but another activist convinced me to stay so we can continue pushing the company to be less evil. Essentially if we are willing to resign from a job, we have nothing to lose so we can take bigger activism risks.

pm90 6y ago
Same. When I was in college, all my peers talked about FAANG's in glowing terms. Doesn't help that these companies often recruit heavily from Universities, so you have alum networks that talk about how great the companies are etc. Its quite an evil genius. When people finally do get a job, they often realize its not always the cool shit that they heard about; most often than not its some uncool shit that brings in a ton of money. This isn't to discount the amazing engineering work that these orgs tend to do. But look at their workforce numbers and tell me with a straight face that all their engineers are working on solving tough engineering problems and not just a cog in the optimization machine.
- pathseeker 6y ago
  That's just because 5+ years ago Amazon/Facebook/Google weren't "giant evil shit-lords" so-to-speak. They were cool even among industry folks. It wasn't long ago that having Google on your resume meant something was special about you. Facebook/Google/Amazon aren't really cool in colleges anymore either.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

vdnkh 6y ago

I think bright, talented engineers also want to get paid for their efforts. When FAANG pays 2-3x most other companies, it doesn't always make sense to go elsewhere.

ssklash 6y ago
Sure, but the idea is about why they pay more. They can afford to, because of how massively lucrative monetizing personal data is. Doing it at scale is hard, and they need the best talent. My comment was about how the best telnet sometimes seem to ignore the hard reality of what they are helping a company do in favor of enjoying the excellent pay and focusing on the admittedly interesting problems they are solving. An intentional effort by those companies to seem glamorous and recruit young engineers out of college makes it worse, as mentioned above.

oneepic 6y ago

You can say that, but people gain a lot from working there. There are many pluses to working at these companies. Pay/benefits/relocation packages, provided on-the-job training and free access to a lot of technical courses, relatively-effective engineering practices (ethics are a separate issue), little-to-no dress code, free food, technical managers (not nontechnical ones) and a nice name on the resume when you leave, to name a few. I'm not saying they are unique to these co's, just that these co's tend to offer all of the above. Plus, oftentimes the job app requirements are pretty general and loose, as opposed to all those shitty firms that want entry-level engineers to have graduated in the past 6 mos, and have experience with 10 different Javascript frameworks. (And then underpay them and work the hell out of them.) I know I saw a lot of those when I was leaving college in 2017/18.

ssklash 6y ago
> ethics are a separate issue They're kinda the main thing I'm talking about here. Everyone knows perfectly well you can gain huge amounts by working at FAANG companies, that's not in doubt. The question is at what cost, do the people doing it see their companies for what they are, and why do people continue to work there if they do. I'm sure being CEO of Phillip Morris or Palantir or Exxon-Mobile is quite lucrative, but I'll pass. Many people just need a job, and I don't begrudge anyone taking a job they need to support themselves or their families. But the kind of talent FAANG companies hire can likely work anywhere and are higher up the socioeconomic ladder. They have choices most others don't. And too many, in my opinion, work to get people to click ads and sell people's data.
- oneepic 6y ago
  My point is that it's irresponsible to reduce these companies to their ads and data practices, because they also tend to be great places to work and tend to offer a positive culture and benefits. You should consider everything before deciding to work there.
  - ssklash 6y ago
    I'm not sure I see how having a great work environment and culture and compensation package justifies helping a company perform its primary function, if that primary function is harmful. I'm not reducing companies like Facebook and Google to their data and ad practices, those practices are their core business model. It's literally why they exist, despite what they may say. GM makes cars, Facebook and Google collect personal information to better sell ads. The awesome benefits and coworkers and cool problems and neat tech don't change why those companies exist. I'm simply questioning why people still work there, assuming they know what they're helping build. Ad tech. That no one wants or needs.

diob 6y ago

I feel like Maslow's hierarchy of needs addresses why so many choose to work there.

BrandonM 6y ago

I think that's taking things a bit too far. Of course, the ultimate goal of every for-profit corporation is to make a profit. But along the way, most of them are providing value to society. So much of the Internet as we know it is built atop AWS. Many people are able to shelter in place with minimal impact largely because of the groundwork laid by Amazon, during more than a decade of not being profitable. That includes ordering equipment to work from home, ordering home goods to avoid going out, running the compute infrastructure that powers teleconferencing tools like Zoom, providing entertainment options through Prime Video, etc. etc. How many families are staying in touch through Facebook Messenger, video chats, and just plain old photos? How many grandparents feel less alone because they can see their family members and a wealth of photos every day? How many old friends reconnect because Facebook exists? Google makes the world better in so many ways that I can't even pretend to address it exhaustively. I personally have been able to experience remote places thanks to Flights, Translate, and Maps. I use Search hundreds of times a week... the world's knowledge is more accessible than ever before thanks in part to Google's efforts to organize it. I think it's totally right to call out companies where their behavior is poor. I think we need to demand—both through social pressure and through laws—that companies respect privacy, treat workers well, and minimally impact the environment. But I think it's taking it a step too far to claim that the world is worse off for the effort of FAANG employees. Even those working on ads... if there's no ad revenue, none of those other benefits exist.

ssklash 6y ago
I agree that we should demand that companies should respect privacy. And if they did, Facebook and Google would cease to exist, or have never existed in the first place. They are surveillance capitalism, pure and simple. They may make Gmail free and make it seem like a photo sharing service exists to help grandparents connect with their kids, but those are simply hooks to lure people in for their data. They have all sorts of cool, free services to disguise the fact that they are looking for your data. No one denies the usefulness of Maps or search or FB messenger. But to pretend that Google and Facebook do it out of the goodness of their hearts or because they care about "connecting people" is naive and exactly what their messaging is intended to convey. Amazon at least provides useful services. They do it on the backs of underpaid and poorly treated warehouse workers, but Prime shipping is sweet! Treatment of those interested in unionizing is about the biggest indicator of a company's values, and Amazon is quite clear on that point. My main point overall is why work for a company like that when there are others doing the good things FAANG companies pretend to be providing?

francisofascii 6y ago

What companies should they work for instead? Is there a list of companies that are more moral than those you listed? Maybe the alternatives are worse. How do you even know?