3 ms·
Wait. Did you really mean to tag anyone simply _employed_ by Facebook as hypocritical? As if being employed by an entity immediately connotes acquiescence to wh
by ncphil 5y ago
Wait. Did you really mean to tag anyone simply _employed_ by Facebook as hypocritical? As if being employed by an entity immediately connotes acquiescence to whatever unethical or immoral behavior that entity engages in? Isn't that "guilt by association" taken a bit far? It's as if you were to call Google pro Sanders because a significant amount of money was donated to the Senator's campaign by non-executive Google employees (as if there were many other avenues to protest the status quo and still put food on the table). Full disclosure: not a big tech employee or a dev, just another over-the-hill greybeard sysadmin with absolutely no influence on corporate behavior.
- shkkmo 5y agoThat is a ridiculous comparison and absolutely not what guilt by association is. If you work for a political campaign before the candidate announces their support for killing puppies, holding you responsible for that position is "guilt by association", but if you go to work for that same candidate after the announcement, it is no longer guilt by association, you have made a deliberate choice to support someone who wants to kill puppies and now share some responsibility. Much of Facebook's anti-privacy behavior is widely documented. Going to work for Facebook absolutely makes you a little responsible for that behavior.