3 ms·
> Assuming these companies are morally evil OK, but what if we /don’t/ assume that? I understand that’s the only acceptable sentiment on HN, but it’s disappoin
by yunohn 5y ago
> Assuming these companies are morally evil
OK, but what if we /don’t/ assume that? I understand that’s the only acceptable sentiment on HN, but it’s disappointingly uninformed.
- scarface74 5y agoYes all the while taking advantage of their services and probably working for VC backed companies hoping that one of the “evil capitalistic companies” will acquire them. Strangely enough I don’t see anyone railing against for profit evil companies willing to sacrifice their pay to work for a non profit or go into social work.
- yunohn 5y agoIndeed, and a complete lack of understanding of real value. For every HNer that complains about FAANG, there’s a million humans that enjoy and use their products. Ironically, for eg, most of the DuckDuckGo posts here end up with DDGers explaining how they enjoy using “!g”…
- netizen-936824 5y agoJust because people use a product doesn't mean its intrinsically good
- scarface74 5y agoBut if said people want to clutch their pearls about the “evil monopolistic capitalist”, they should be willing to make the sacrifices and not use those services, work for companies that use those services or work for VC funded companies who are hoping to be bought out by those companies. How many people who want to take the moral high ground will give up their CS pay to become social workers to “make the world a better place.”?
- yunohn 5y agoJust because you don’t think a product isn’t intrinsically good, doesn’t make it so either? Only the most dogmatic critics of FAANG would argue that FAANG products provide no value. Everyone else is willing to acknowledge that they’re useful but come with trade offs - like everything else in life.