5 ms·

There's no story. You need to remember - big corporations are not your friend. They're your enemy. They don't care about you. They don't care about doing good.

There's no story. You need to remember - big corporations are not your friend. They're your enemy. They don't care about you. They don't care about doing good. They care about money. They care about control. They care about their stock price. That's it. You might ask - but what about the people who work at those corporations? And that's also pretty simply explained by this classic quote: it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

rtp4me 11mo ago
They are not your enemy either. They are… businesses. Whose purpose is to survive and thrive. Just because you don’t like them or what they do doesn’t make them your enemy. And, lots of very talented and smart people work there every day for their own personal reasons. No need to bash or show hatred to them.
- Meneth 11mo ago
  "Just because you don’t like them or what they do doesn’t make them your enemy." Yes it does. That is the only thing that makes enemies.
  - rtp4me 11mo ago
    What a sad, sad take. Do you even know what the word “enemy” means? Just because I don’t like my neighbor doesn’t make them my enemy. We are not going to war with each other, we just don’t like each other’s company. Just because I don’t like your comments on HN doesn’t mean I hate you. Good grief. Note: I do like my neighbor!
    - afavour 11mo ago
      But if your neighbour actively and deliberately makes your life worse then they certainly could be your enemy. If I’m queer and Facebook is actively censoring queer content then that’s more significant to me than just being a difference of opinion. The company is actively suppressing my way of life. Maybe the word “enemy” is too much but if so I think describing the idea as “sad” is equally as so. Giving a corporation a pass on behaviour you consider abhorrent simply because it’s a company and not a person seems pretty sad to me.
      - rtp4me 11mo ago
        And by your own logic, how does censoring content actively suppress your way of life? Did someone from Meta go to your place of residence and actively threaten to harm you? Sure, maybe you don’t like the censorship, but how does that make them your enemy? Have you openly declared war on them? If you don’t like their content, simply move along.
        ToucanLoucan 11mo ago
        > And by your own logic, how does censoring content actively suppress your way of life? Because it erases our existence, which is what a substantial slice of straight society wants. Queer content and spaces are important for queer adults, because it gives us places to comfortably be ourselves without feeling subject to leering or judgement from bigots, and safety in numbers in case someone starts something. It gives us people to be among who we can talk to, form community with, and support one another. And for people just coming up, it's literally lifesaving. Numerous studies have shown that queer-leaning teens and kids are MUCH safer when they have access to safe places to explore who they are, even if they don't "turn out" that way, prevents awful, irreversible things. [1,2,3] Not to mention it can be lifesaving also when their parents are bigots themselves and they need a way out. > Sure, maybe you don’t like the censorship, but how does that make them your enemy? The bridge between "they suppress expressions of who I am" and "they participate in my extermination" has been proven to be quite short and easily traversed for queers many times, and for racial groups, and for religious groups too. [4] By your definition they may not be my enemy today, but they may be in a short period of time. > If you don’t like their content, simply move along. This is actually great advice for people who keep trying to take down queer content. Edit: And this is exactly what figures like Breitbart have been openly trying to do for over a decade. And it isn't just him either, you have the Family Research Council, Fox News hosts, Daily Wire personalities like Matt Walsh, and Libs of TikTok have all made careers out of normalizing queer erasure. For them, "winning the culture war" is not only their stated, in-text goal, it's a means of pushing us out of public life: sometimes just running us out of town, other times things too ugly to say aloud. 1. AFSP – LGBTQ youth face higher suicide risk, but affirming spaces cut that risk significantly. https://afsp.org/preventing-suicide-in-lgbtq-communities/ https://afsp.org/preventing-suicide-in-lgbtq-communities/ 2. Springer (2025) – Queer teens are 5–8× more likely to attempt suicide; supportive spaces reduce risk. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12310-025-09797-4 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12310-025-09797-4 3. Trevor Project (2020) – Having even one affirming space lowers suicide attempts by 35%. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research-briefs/lgbtq-gender-affirming-spaces/ https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research-briefs/lgbtq-gende... 4. Oxford Research Encyclopedia (2019) – History shows censorship of queer spaces often escalates into violence and erasure. https://oxfordre.com/politics/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1221?rskey=IniHES&result=2 https://oxfordre.com/politics/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore...
    - drcongo 11mo ago
      You've entered into a logical fallacy there - the parent was saying that not liking someone or what they do is a prerequisite for them becoming an enemy. They did NOT say that everyone you don't like is your enemy, which is the straw man you chose to respond to.
      - n4r9 11mo ago
        I disagree. If you take statement X to be "you don't like them" and Y to be "they're your enemy". Then OP said "Just because X is true, it doesn't mean Y is true". In other words, "X does not imply Y". Meneth said "yes it does". In other words, "X implies Y".
        drcongo 11mo ago
        All enemies are people you dislike and / or people who do things you don't like. This does not make the opposite true, not all people you dislike or who do things you don't like are your enemy. The statement "all cats are black" does not also mean "all black things are cats".
        n4r9 11mo ago
        I roughly agree with you on that (with the caveat that e.g. opposing army generals can be enemies but admire and respect each other). I disagree that Meneth was saying what you said.
- duskdozer 11mo ago
  People who cause harm in the course of performing their role in a business should be criticized and opposed, actually.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
- panta 11mo ago
  It is actively working to make the world a worse place and to degrade the fabric of society that makes them an enemy.
  - rtp4me 11mo ago
    I dunno. I used Market Place yesterday to get a new dry erase board (new to me). And, many people use FB to communicate with friends and family. How is that working to make the world a worse place?
    - sumeno 11mo ago
      Things can be good for you personally and still make the world a worse place.
      - gunt_crusher 11mo ago
        [dead]
    - immibis 10mo ago
      No idea. There was once this German guy who planted flowers in front of factories. His name was Adolf Hitler and I'm not sure why everyone hates him so much. (This is sarcastic and do you see the problem with your comment now?)
- TheOtherHobbes 11mo ago
  Less of the "not liking" and more of an "are an existential threat to." This isn't high school. This is about real people having real experiences of fear, stress, violence, and horror facilitated by deliberate cultural engineering. If the very talented and smart people don't get that, that's a them problem.
- mulr00ney 11mo ago
  What would be a resaonable cause to bash them, in your view, if not disliking what they do? I don't think we should hate them or show them hatred. I don't think that if you're working at a company that's suppressing someone's way of life you're somehow above criticism or contempt.
  - rtp4me 11mo ago
    The question is, why do you feel the need to bash them? Do you feel the need to bash the coders of YouTube because they have ads or censor content? Do you feel the need to say ugly things to your grocery store because they don’t actively have the goods you want? Are they your enemy because they hire a certain type of person?
    - mulr00ney 11mo ago
      > The question is I don't mean to be a dick, but no, the question was what is a reasonable cause to bash someone if it's not disliking what they do. I don't know if these weird Socratic replies are meant to be thoughtful but they read as dismissive and condescending. But hey, I can also play stupid games! > The question is, why do you feel the need to bash them? Why do you feel the need to defend them? (I answer this question less flippantly below.) > Do you feel the need to say ugly things to your grocery store because they don’t actively have the goods you want? Is not stocking garbanzo beans censorship? Why do you think this is equivalent? > Do you feel the need to bash the coders of YouTube because they have ads or censor content? Depends what Youtube is advertising. Depends what they're censoring. > Are they your enemy because they hire a certain type of person? Who'd they hire? ... There is a difference between my grocery store stocking or not stocking something and having problems with a multi-national trillion dollar company that has wedged itself itself into most people's daily lives and has a history of censoring content to curry favour with authoritarians. I sympathize with the folks who are working there trying to change things for the better, and I sympathize with the people who are legitimately stuck for whatever reason (don't know a lot about visas to the US, but those are probably a good reason). I also think they're tough enough to take it when they dunked on, and have the reading comprehension to realize that when people are critical of Facebook employees, there's context where it absolutely makes sense. Being a Facebook employee is not an identity, it's just a job. Facebook has pivoted to censoring queer content at a time when queer people are being marginalized after years of gains. Most of my ire is directed at the executives and management, but yeah, if you work at Facebook knowing what they do, you're not getting a pass.
- otikik 11mo ago
  > No need to bash or show hatred to them Not only bash but zsh, fish and sh them as well.
- prmoustache 11mo ago
  While privately owned business can put ethics before outright profit, large public companies are always bound to become assholes so yes they become de facto our enemies while also being our best friends because our pension depends on them.
- deaux 11mo ago
  > And, lots of very talented and smart people work there every day for their own personal reasons. No need to bash or show hatred to them. Lots of very talented and smart people work for big tobacco, Aramco, Stake (crypto gambling), Kick (streaming of crypto gambling), Purdue (made billions on manufacturing an opioid epidemic), DuPont, Shein, Nestlé, NSO group, the GEO group (private prison industry), Clearview (facial recognition at scale including for ICE) and indeed Meta.
  - gunt_crusher 11mo ago
    [dead]
- gherkinnn 11mo ago
  Some businesses go out of their way to be awful and they deserve every ounce of scorn. Some even know they are causing harm, bury the evidence and continue. Also, simping for these companies is such a bad look.
- mikkupikku 11mo ago
  Corporations aren't your enemy in the same way bears aren't your enemy. They are... bears. Its not personal, and they operate outside of human morality so it doesn't even make sense to call them evil. But they'll still eat you.
ancillary 11mo ago
> And that's also pretty simply explained by this classic quote: it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. I've come to strongly dislike this quote, because it's so often used on HN to decide that whoever's disagreeing with you is doing it for simple, stupid and greedy reasons, thus absolving you of the duty to think a bit about whether there might be nuance you're missing.
- psychoslave 11mo ago
  We all have limited cognitive budget. Keep nuance investment were there is relevancy for it makes more sense than spending it on things where it’s not going to bring any value to anyone.

rtp4me 11mo ago

They are not your enemy either. They are… businesses. Whose purpose is to survive and thrive. Just because you don’t like them or what they do doesn’t make them your enemy. And, lots of very talented and smart people work there every day for their own personal reasons. No need to bash or show hatred to them.

Meneth 11mo ago
"Just because you don’t like them or what they do doesn’t make them your enemy." Yes it does. That is the only thing that makes enemies.
- rtp4me 11mo ago
  What a sad, sad take. Do you even know what the word “enemy” means? Just because I don’t like my neighbor doesn’t make them my enemy. We are not going to war with each other, we just don’t like each other’s company. Just because I don’t like your comments on HN doesn’t mean I hate you. Good grief. Note: I do like my neighbor!
  - afavour 11mo ago
    But if your neighbour actively and deliberately makes your life worse then they certainly could be your enemy. If I’m queer and Facebook is actively censoring queer content then that’s more significant to me than just being a difference of opinion. The company is actively suppressing my way of life. Maybe the word “enemy” is too much but if so I think describing the idea as “sad” is equally as so. Giving a corporation a pass on behaviour you consider abhorrent simply because it’s a company and not a person seems pretty sad to me.
    - rtp4me 11mo ago
      And by your own logic, how does censoring content actively suppress your way of life? Did someone from Meta go to your place of residence and actively threaten to harm you? Sure, maybe you don’t like the censorship, but how does that make them your enemy? Have you openly declared war on them? If you don’t like their content, simply move along.
      - ToucanLoucan 11mo ago
        > And by your own logic, how does censoring content actively suppress your way of life? Because it erases our existence, which is what a substantial slice of straight society wants. Queer content and spaces are important for queer adults, because it gives us places to comfortably be ourselves without feeling subject to leering or judgement from bigots, and safety in numbers in case someone starts something. It gives us people to be among who we can talk to, form community with, and support one another. And for people just coming up, it's literally lifesaving. Numerous studies have shown that queer-leaning teens and kids are MUCH safer when they have access to safe places to explore who they are, even if they don't "turn out" that way, prevents awful, irreversible things. [1,2,3] Not to mention it can be lifesaving also when their parents are bigots themselves and they need a way out. > Sure, maybe you don’t like the censorship, but how does that make them your enemy? The bridge between "they suppress expressions of who I am" and "they participate in my extermination" has been proven to be quite short and easily traversed for queers many times, and for racial groups, and for religious groups too. [4] By your definition they may not be my enemy today, but they may be in a short period of time. > If you don’t like their content, simply move along. This is actually great advice for people who keep trying to take down queer content. Edit: And this is exactly what figures like Breitbart have been openly trying to do for over a decade. And it isn't just him either, you have the Family Research Council, Fox News hosts, Daily Wire personalities like Matt Walsh, and Libs of TikTok have all made careers out of normalizing queer erasure. For them, "winning the culture war" is not only their stated, in-text goal, it's a means of pushing us out of public life: sometimes just running us out of town, other times things too ugly to say aloud. 1. AFSP – LGBTQ youth face higher suicide risk, but affirming spaces cut that risk significantly. https://afsp.org/preventing-suicide-in-lgbtq-communities/ https://afsp.org/preventing-suicide-in-lgbtq-communities/ 2. Springer (2025) – Queer teens are 5–8× more likely to attempt suicide; supportive spaces reduce risk. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12310-025-09797-4 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12310-025-09797-4 3. Trevor Project (2020) – Having even one affirming space lowers suicide attempts by 35%. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research-briefs/lgbtq-gender-affirming-spaces/ https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research-briefs/lgbtq-gende... 4. Oxford Research Encyclopedia (2019) – History shows censorship of queer spaces often escalates into violence and erasure. https://oxfordre.com/politics/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1221?rskey=IniHES&result=2 https://oxfordre.com/politics/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore...
  - drcongo 11mo ago
    You've entered into a logical fallacy there - the parent was saying that not liking someone or what they do is a prerequisite for them becoming an enemy. They did NOT say that everyone you don't like is your enemy, which is the straw man you chose to respond to.
    - n4r9 11mo ago
      I disagree. If you take statement X to be "you don't like them" and Y to be "they're your enemy". Then OP said "Just because X is true, it doesn't mean Y is true". In other words, "X does not imply Y". Meneth said "yes it does". In other words, "X implies Y".
      - drcongo 11mo ago
        All enemies are people you dislike and / or people who do things you don't like. This does not make the opposite true, not all people you dislike or who do things you don't like are your enemy. The statement "all cats are black" does not also mean "all black things are cats".
        n4r9 11mo ago
        I roughly agree with you on that (with the caveat that e.g. opposing army generals can be enemies but admire and respect each other). I disagree that Meneth was saying what you said.
duskdozer 11mo ago
People who cause harm in the course of performing their role in a business should be criticized and opposed, actually.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
panta 11mo ago
It is actively working to make the world a worse place and to degrade the fabric of society that makes them an enemy.
- rtp4me 11mo ago
  I dunno. I used Market Place yesterday to get a new dry erase board (new to me). And, many people use FB to communicate with friends and family. How is that working to make the world a worse place?
  - sumeno 11mo ago
    Things can be good for you personally and still make the world a worse place.
    - gunt_crusher 11mo ago
      [dead]
  - immibis 10mo ago
    No idea. There was once this German guy who planted flowers in front of factories. His name was Adolf Hitler and I'm not sure why everyone hates him so much. (This is sarcastic and do you see the problem with your comment now?)
TheOtherHobbes 11mo ago
Less of the "not liking" and more of an "are an existential threat to." This isn't high school. This is about real people having real experiences of fear, stress, violence, and horror facilitated by deliberate cultural engineering. If the very talented and smart people don't get that, that's a them problem.
mulr00ney 11mo ago
What would be a resaonable cause to bash them, in your view, if not disliking what they do? I don't think we should hate them or show them hatred. I don't think that if you're working at a company that's suppressing someone's way of life you're somehow above criticism or contempt.
- rtp4me 11mo ago
  The question is, why do you feel the need to bash them? Do you feel the need to bash the coders of YouTube because they have ads or censor content? Do you feel the need to say ugly things to your grocery store because they don’t actively have the goods you want? Are they your enemy because they hire a certain type of person?
  - mulr00ney 11mo ago
    > The question is I don't mean to be a dick, but no, the question was what is a reasonable cause to bash someone if it's not disliking what they do. I don't know if these weird Socratic replies are meant to be thoughtful but they read as dismissive and condescending. But hey, I can also play stupid games! > The question is, why do you feel the need to bash them? Why do you feel the need to defend them? (I answer this question less flippantly below.) > Do you feel the need to say ugly things to your grocery store because they don’t actively have the goods you want? Is not stocking garbanzo beans censorship? Why do you think this is equivalent? > Do you feel the need to bash the coders of YouTube because they have ads or censor content? Depends what Youtube is advertising. Depends what they're censoring. > Are they your enemy because they hire a certain type of person? Who'd they hire? ... There is a difference between my grocery store stocking or not stocking something and having problems with a multi-national trillion dollar company that has wedged itself itself into most people's daily lives and has a history of censoring content to curry favour with authoritarians. I sympathize with the folks who are working there trying to change things for the better, and I sympathize with the people who are legitimately stuck for whatever reason (don't know a lot about visas to the US, but those are probably a good reason). I also think they're tough enough to take it when they dunked on, and have the reading comprehension to realize that when people are critical of Facebook employees, there's context where it absolutely makes sense. Being a Facebook employee is not an identity, it's just a job. Facebook has pivoted to censoring queer content at a time when queer people are being marginalized after years of gains. Most of my ire is directed at the executives and management, but yeah, if you work at Facebook knowing what they do, you're not getting a pass.
otikik 11mo ago
> No need to bash or show hatred to them Not only bash but zsh, fish and sh them as well.
prmoustache 11mo ago
While privately owned business can put ethics before outright profit, large public companies are always bound to become assholes so yes they become de facto our enemies while also being our best friends because our pension depends on them.
deaux 11mo ago
> And, lots of very talented and smart people work there every day for their own personal reasons. No need to bash or show hatred to them. Lots of very talented and smart people work for big tobacco, Aramco, Stake (crypto gambling), Kick (streaming of crypto gambling), Purdue (made billions on manufacturing an opioid epidemic), DuPont, Shein, Nestlé, NSO group, the GEO group (private prison industry), Clearview (facial recognition at scale including for ICE) and indeed Meta.
- gunt_crusher 11mo ago
  [dead]
gherkinnn 11mo ago
Some businesses go out of their way to be awful and they deserve every ounce of scorn. Some even know they are causing harm, bury the evidence and continue. Also, simping for these companies is such a bad look.
mikkupikku 11mo ago
Corporations aren't your enemy in the same way bears aren't your enemy. They are... bears. Its not personal, and they operate outside of human morality so it doesn't even make sense to call them evil. But they'll still eat you.

ancillary 11mo ago

> And that's also pretty simply explained by this classic quote: it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. I've come to strongly dislike this quote, because it's so often used on HN to decide that whoever's disagreeing with you is doing it for simple, stupid and greedy reasons, thus absolving you of the duty to think a bit about whether there might be nuance you're missing.

psychoslave 11mo ago
We all have limited cognitive budget. Keep nuance investment were there is relevancy for it makes more sense than spending it on things where it’s not going to bring any value to anyone.