4 ms·

They won't reflect, these people literally have no morales. The only thing they value is money and giving teenage girls depression. edit: sorry but if you purp

by shimman 4mo ago

They won't reflect, these people literally have no morales. The only thing they value is money and giving teenage girls depression. edit: sorry but if you purposely to chose to work at Meta after 2016 you clearly have zero morals and are fine with working at a company that not only willingly exacerbated a genocide but knowingly profited off of it too. These workers can't be condemned enough, some of these devs should be in prison too.

cindyllm 4mo ago
[dead]
onlyrealcuzzo 4mo ago
> The only thing they value is money and giving teenage girls depression. You really think if they didn't work there, someone else wouldn't? You really think them and only them are the people capable of doing whatever technical things are causing the problems you perceive?
- 98codes 4mo ago
  "Someone else would be willing to ruin this, so I may as well ruin it and get paid for it" is not a direction everyone wants to, or even is willing to go.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 4mo ago
  Someone else isn’t a 1:1 replacement, when people refuse to work for you you’re stuck offering higher wages and or taking worse employees. How well a job is compensated on average very much depends on how willing and able the average person is to do it.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- jlengrand 4mo ago
  In case you care, what you're doing is called causal impotence https://philpapers.org/rec/NORTIO-18 https://philpapers.org/rec/NORTIO-18. Then you can also search why it does matter.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4mo ago
    Where do you draw the line? You're a TVC in the kitchen at Meta? All you do is give girls depression? You work at a business that buys ads on Meta? Is all you do is give girls depression? Even if you work in a non-profit branch specifically to do out-reach for kids or something?? How far separated from Meta do you have to be to not be reduced to doing nothing but giving girls depression?
    - jlengrand 4mo ago
      Your obsession about teenage girls is worrying EDIT: my bad, I read you wrong and didn't realize you didn't bring up the whole tenage girl thing. Sorry for that.
      - onlyrealcuzzo 4mo ago
        Nice dodge. I'm directly addressing OP's original comment that "all anyone at Meta does is give girls depression." It's almost as if it's not that reductive... even though you just made the same reduction... Want to answer the actual question?
        hparadiz 4mo ago
        I remember before FB was a thing and sharing photos with your friends was a huge pain in the ass. We had dozens of different websites in this days from MySpace to some weird ones that you've never heard of before. They all did the same thing as FB even to the point of having a very similar UI. The whole "damage to the world" thing is lost on me. I was in college when FB came out and we all were eagerly trying to get an invite to the site. You could only sign up with an EDU email at the beginning. Before Facebook there were magazines for teenagers that set the same exact standards and had the same exact issues.
- bluerooibos 4mo ago
  [flagged]
- freejazz 4mo ago
  >You really think if they didn't work there, someone else wouldn't? What does that have to do with any person's individual morals?
- bigstrat2003 4mo ago
  "Someone else would do it if I don't" is not, and never has been, a valid argument for whether something is moral to do. If you want to argue that it's morally permissible to work at Facebook, you need to argue that on its own merits, not by appealing to fallacies.
- jbxntuehineoh 4mo ago
  But your honor! If I didn't sell heroin, someone else would!
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
- lo_zamoyski 4mo ago
  > You really think if they didn't work there, someone else wouldn't? Putting Meta aside as I do not have a sufficiently deep view of the total scope of work at Meta and its relation to its misdeeds, I never understood how anyone found this fallacious line of reasoning convincing. So what if someone else would do it? The point is that you are morally responsible for your actions and your actions alone. It horrifies me completely to realize that so many people would excuse their own gravely immoral actions on the incomprehensible grounds that if they didn't do it, someone else would. Where is the logic? It is such a severely morally and psychologically crippled way of thinking. Yes, if I don't shoot the innocent civilian in the head, then SS-Schütze Schmidt will do it anyway, so I might as well do it. Incredible. Morality is not some calculus that is concerned about whether certain events occur or about optimizing some sum total of events. It is about how you, personally, use your agency. That's it!
- tommyogod 4mo ago
  "If I didn't cheat on you then someone else would" good lord
ModernMech 4mo ago
> giving teenage girls depression. FYI there's nothing that said the depression Facebook intentionally causes in teenagers is limited to just girls.

by shimman 4mo ago

cindyllm 4mo ago

[dead]

onlyrealcuzzo 4mo ago

> The only thing they value is money and giving teenage girls depression. You really think if they didn't work there, someone else wouldn't? You really think them and only them are the people capable of doing whatever technical things are causing the problems you perceive?

98codes 4mo ago
"Someone else would be willing to ruin this, so I may as well ruin it and get paid for it" is not a direction everyone wants to, or even is willing to go.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
Retric 4mo ago
Someone else isn’t a 1:1 replacement, when people refuse to work for you you’re stuck offering higher wages and or taking worse employees. How well a job is compensated on average very much depends on how willing and able the average person is to do it.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
jlengrand 4mo ago
In case you care, what you're doing is called causal impotence https://philpapers.org/rec/NORTIO-18 https://philpapers.org/rec/NORTIO-18. Then you can also search why it does matter.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4mo ago
  Where do you draw the line? You're a TVC in the kitchen at Meta? All you do is give girls depression? You work at a business that buys ads on Meta? Is all you do is give girls depression? Even if you work in a non-profit branch specifically to do out-reach for kids or something?? How far separated from Meta do you have to be to not be reduced to doing nothing but giving girls depression?
  - jlengrand 4mo ago
    Your obsession about teenage girls is worrying EDIT: my bad, I read you wrong and didn't realize you didn't bring up the whole tenage girl thing. Sorry for that.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 4mo ago
      Nice dodge. I'm directly addressing OP's original comment that "all anyone at Meta does is give girls depression." It's almost as if it's not that reductive... even though you just made the same reduction... Want to answer the actual question?
      - hparadiz 4mo ago
        I remember before FB was a thing and sharing photos with your friends was a huge pain in the ass. We had dozens of different websites in this days from MySpace to some weird ones that you've never heard of before. They all did the same thing as FB even to the point of having a very similar UI. The whole "damage to the world" thing is lost on me. I was in college when FB came out and we all were eagerly trying to get an invite to the site. You could only sign up with an EDU email at the beginning. Before Facebook there were magazines for teenagers that set the same exact standards and had the same exact issues.
bluerooibos 4mo ago
[flagged]
freejazz 4mo ago
>You really think if they didn't work there, someone else wouldn't? What does that have to do with any person's individual morals?
bigstrat2003 4mo ago
"Someone else would do it if I don't" is not, and never has been, a valid argument for whether something is moral to do. If you want to argue that it's morally permissible to work at Facebook, you need to argue that on its own merits, not by appealing to fallacies.
jbxntuehineoh 4mo ago
But your honor! If I didn't sell heroin, someone else would!
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
lo_zamoyski 4mo ago
> You really think if they didn't work there, someone else wouldn't? Putting Meta aside as I do not have a sufficiently deep view of the total scope of work at Meta and its relation to its misdeeds, I never understood how anyone found this fallacious line of reasoning convincing. So what if someone else would do it? The point is that you are morally responsible for your actions and your actions alone. It horrifies me completely to realize that so many people would excuse their own gravely immoral actions on the incomprehensible grounds that if they didn't do it, someone else would. Where is the logic? It is such a severely morally and psychologically crippled way of thinking. Yes, if I don't shoot the innocent civilian in the head, then SS-Schütze Schmidt will do it anyway, so I might as well do it. Incredible. Morality is not some calculus that is concerned about whether certain events occur or about optimizing some sum total of events. It is about how you, personally, use your agency. That's it!
tommyogod 4mo ago
"If I didn't cheat on you then someone else would" good lord

ModernMech 4mo ago

> giving teenage girls depression. FYI there's nothing that said the depression Facebook intentionally causes in teenagers is limited to just girls.