3 ms·

> you have the ability to positively impact most of the planet (billions of people) Hundreds of thousands of people work there, yet they haven't managed to ach

by tgv 4y ago

> you have the ability to positively impact most of the planet (billions of people) Hundreds of thousands of people work there, yet they haven't managed to achieve that positive impact.

edanm 4y ago
In your opinion. Other people disagree. Whose opinion should they listen to? (And more in the spirit of the specific question parent raised - someone working at Facebook on funding charities. Are they "bad" for doing that job?)
- 411111111111111 4y ago
  That's not really an opinion though. Facebook continues to ignore morality in it's chase to maximize profits.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    Can you provide some evidence behind this claim that they ignore morality?
charcircuit 4y ago
>yet they haven't managed to achieve that positive impact. You don't reach billions of users without positively impacting people who use your service. If there was no positive impact people would simply abandon Google's and Facebook's services.
- tgv 4y ago
  “If there was no positive impact people would simply abandon meth.”
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    Yes, if there was no positive impact then basically no one new would start using meth and the meth user population would eventually die out. If you had an addictive drug and all it did was make all your teeth fall out with no extra side effects almost no one would take it. While yes, Meth is dangerous and addictive I don't think what Google and Facebook are doing is bad. How is Google giving people access to the world's data or Facebook connecting the world a bad thing? They are trying to do good things and are constantly trying to reduce the harm their services bring to people. They have entire organizations within these companies for doing so.
    - tgv 4y ago
      > If you had an addictive drug and all it did was make all your teeth fall out with no extra side effects almost no one would take it. I can't help but notice that you dropped "positive" here, and I can only assume it's on purpose, as otherwise your argument would like quite silly. People using something does not mean it's positive. The list doesn't really stop at meth.
- 9dev 4y ago
  Do you really equate product growth with a positive impact on people..? Developers working for Facebook or Google are fully aware their employer pays their salary by selling other peoples data. There is no excuse other than immorality.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    Yes, no one is forcing people to use Google's search product. People use it because it has a positive impact in helping them find things easier. >by selling other peoples data Neither of these companies sell user data. Both these companies take user privacy more seriously than almost every other company on Earth.
    - alphabettsy 4y ago
      > Neither of these companies sell user data. Both these companies take user privacy more seriously than almost every other company on Earth. That depends on your idea of privacy. Collecting and retaining incredible amounts of data about people even without their consent isn’t my idea of respecting privacy.
      - jimmydorry 4y ago
        Yet GP said "selling data", not "collecting data". Google and Facebook collect hordes of data and sell access to insights of it, but not the underlying data itself as that data is far too valuable.
        9dev 4y ago
        We can play semantics all day, but both companies sell insights and slices of data to ad customers, while acting benevolent and community-focused to their users. The valuable hordes of data you mention have been collected without users actually understanding what or why this is happening. If you only care about getting a good pay from such a job, fine. But that just makes you immoral in my book.
JauntTrooper 4y ago
You don't think Google has achieved a positive impact? Search, Maps, Gmail, YouTube, Chrome, Android, Cloud, Pixel, Nest, Fitbit, Stadia, Drive? Not to mention their other projects like DeepMind / AlphaFold?
- tgv 4y ago
  I did mention "the last 5 years". Search is from 20 years ago. Pixel is just another phone. Fitbit, Deepmind, YouTube and Nest are not Google's. They were bought. And YouTube is a net negative impact. Android was also acquired, and that was purely to get more control over the user and their data, as was Google Docs and Gmail. Google's management of Android is frankly horrid. Their security update policy? Buy a new phone, loser, and agree to our new terms of use! Chrome isn't even an original Google project, but forked from WebKit, again with the intention to control the user and their data, and preferably wall them in. No, Google has had a negative impact on the world over the last years, and they will have it as long as they dominate the markets. And the people that work on it can see it.

by tgv 4y ago

> you have the ability to positively impact most of the planet (billions of people) Hundreds of thousands of people work there, yet they haven't managed to achieve that positive impact.

edanm 4y ago

In your opinion. Other people disagree. Whose opinion should they listen to? (And more in the spirit of the specific question parent raised - someone working at Facebook on funding charities. Are they "bad" for doing that job?)

411111111111111 4y ago
That's not really an opinion though. Facebook continues to ignore morality in it's chase to maximize profits.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  Can you provide some evidence behind this claim that they ignore morality?

charcircuit 4y ago

>yet they haven't managed to achieve that positive impact. You don't reach billions of users without positively impacting people who use your service. If there was no positive impact people would simply abandon Google's and Facebook's services.

tgv 4y ago
“If there was no positive impact people would simply abandon meth.”
- charcircuit 4y ago
  Yes, if there was no positive impact then basically no one new would start using meth and the meth user population would eventually die out. If you had an addictive drug and all it did was make all your teeth fall out with no extra side effects almost no one would take it. While yes, Meth is dangerous and addictive I don't think what Google and Facebook are doing is bad. How is Google giving people access to the world's data or Facebook connecting the world a bad thing? They are trying to do good things and are constantly trying to reduce the harm their services bring to people. They have entire organizations within these companies for doing so.
  - tgv 4y ago
    > If you had an addictive drug and all it did was make all your teeth fall out with no extra side effects almost no one would take it. I can't help but notice that you dropped "positive" here, and I can only assume it's on purpose, as otherwise your argument would like quite silly. People using something does not mean it's positive. The list doesn't really stop at meth.
9dev 4y ago
Do you really equate product growth with a positive impact on people..? Developers working for Facebook or Google are fully aware their employer pays their salary by selling other peoples data. There is no excuse other than immorality.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  Yes, no one is forcing people to use Google's search product. People use it because it has a positive impact in helping them find things easier. >by selling other peoples data Neither of these companies sell user data. Both these companies take user privacy more seriously than almost every other company on Earth.
  - alphabettsy 4y ago
    > Neither of these companies sell user data. Both these companies take user privacy more seriously than almost every other company on Earth. That depends on your idea of privacy. Collecting and retaining incredible amounts of data about people even without their consent isn’t my idea of respecting privacy.
    - jimmydorry 4y ago
      Yet GP said "selling data", not "collecting data". Google and Facebook collect hordes of data and sell access to insights of it, but not the underlying data itself as that data is far too valuable.
      - 9dev 4y ago
        We can play semantics all day, but both companies sell insights and slices of data to ad customers, while acting benevolent and community-focused to their users. The valuable hordes of data you mention have been collected without users actually understanding what or why this is happening. If you only care about getting a good pay from such a job, fine. But that just makes you immoral in my book.

JauntTrooper 4y ago

You don't think Google has achieved a positive impact? Search, Maps, Gmail, YouTube, Chrome, Android, Cloud, Pixel, Nest, Fitbit, Stadia, Drive? Not to mention their other projects like DeepMind / AlphaFold?

tgv 4y ago
I did mention "the last 5 years". Search is from 20 years ago. Pixel is just another phone. Fitbit, Deepmind, YouTube and Nest are not Google's. They were bought. And YouTube is a net negative impact. Android was also acquired, and that was purely to get more control over the user and their data, as was Google Docs and Gmail. Google's management of Android is frankly horrid. Their security update policy? Buy a new phone, loser, and agree to our new terms of use! Chrome isn't even an original Google project, but forked from WebKit, again with the intention to control the user and their data, and preferably wall them in. No, Google has had a negative impact on the world over the last years, and they will have it as long as they dominate the markets. And the people that work on it can see it.