4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
        dylan604 4mo ago
        Are you seriously reducing all of FB to an image sharing site?
  - mplanchard 4mo ago
    Obviously it’s a spectrum, no? Anyone contributing to the edifice is in some way furthering its core mission (giving girls depression, or utterly destroying society, depending on who you ask). At one end of the spectrum you have very talented, smart engineers who could easily get a job anywhere, devoting their lives to targeting ads, surveillance, brain-hacking the masses with the algorithm in order to sell more ads, etc. At the other end is, let’s say, the cleaning staff. Meta would suffer if either group outright refused to work for them, but their mission is affected more by the engineers, they are harder to replace, they have many more options in terms of alternative employment, and they have greater knowledge of the impact of the business. Thus, they bear (much) higher relative moral responsibility. Compare to the cleaning staff, who, because of their relative lack of standing, agency (they likely work for some other company that Meta contracts with), or other options, bear negligible moral responsibility, even though their absence would likely make Meta’s offices uninhabitable. Everyone working there is somewhere on that spectrum. They can make their own judgements about the degree to which they bear any moral culpability, but it’s not unfair to say that someone working on open source at Facebook still contributes to the overall mission by oss-washing facebook’s reputation, promulgating the brand into the engineering consciousness, etc., even if they are not directly contributing to giving girls depression.
- shimman 4mo ago
  Very interesting, never heard the term before but are there more philosophical concepts tying in the ideas of solidarity and labor movements? Thanks for sharing the paper. Going to read it tonight, the abstract is very interesting.
  - Anon1096 4mo ago
    Do you really think the guy branding thousands of people working at Meta as basically pedophiles can really be said to care about "solidarity"? I certainly wouldn't consider someone a peer if they randomly go and call me a pedophile because of where I work. I'm sure 95% of people working there have 0 relation to the algorithm decisions and definitely have no particular fixation on giving teenage girls depression.
    - shimman 4mo ago
      Material outcomes are the only thing that matters, not personal wants or wishes. If you worked as an accountant for Epstein after 2006, then yeah you may not be exactly a pedophile but you have shown you're okay with not only working with pedophiles but having a pedophile actively enrich you. Very few people on this planet are willing to actually do this. Those are Meta are willing to do exactly this. Also solidarity is a two way street and acting as if the literal 1% of earners in the nation will suddenly develop empathy is foolish. I have solidarity for actual workers trying to better society; not for those that exacerbate the climate crisis, help minorities get cancer through data center expansions, personally profit off of scamming seniors, are okay with allowing a genocide on their watch, do nothing to help prevent the erosion of democracy, and have directly caused many suicides/self harm/deaths of despair. They have to commit to a lifetime of repenting and self-flagellation isn't going to cut it. It's not the middle ages.
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

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.
      - dylan604 4mo ago
        Are you seriously reducing all of FB to an image sharing site?
- mplanchard 4mo ago
  Obviously it’s a spectrum, no? Anyone contributing to the edifice is in some way furthering its core mission (giving girls depression, or utterly destroying society, depending on who you ask). At one end of the spectrum you have very talented, smart engineers who could easily get a job anywhere, devoting their lives to targeting ads, surveillance, brain-hacking the masses with the algorithm in order to sell more ads, etc. At the other end is, let’s say, the cleaning staff. Meta would suffer if either group outright refused to work for them, but their mission is affected more by the engineers, they are harder to replace, they have many more options in terms of alternative employment, and they have greater knowledge of the impact of the business. Thus, they bear (much) higher relative moral responsibility. Compare to the cleaning staff, who, because of their relative lack of standing, agency (they likely work for some other company that Meta contracts with), or other options, bear negligible moral responsibility, even though their absence would likely make Meta’s offices uninhabitable. Everyone working there is somewhere on that spectrum. They can make their own judgements about the degree to which they bear any moral culpability, but it’s not unfair to say that someone working on open source at Facebook still contributes to the overall mission by oss-washing facebook’s reputation, promulgating the brand into the engineering consciousness, etc., even if they are not directly contributing to giving girls depression.
shimman 4mo ago
Very interesting, never heard the term before but are there more philosophical concepts tying in the ideas of solidarity and labor movements? Thanks for sharing the paper. Going to read it tonight, the abstract is very interesting.
- Anon1096 4mo ago
  Do you really think the guy branding thousands of people working at Meta as basically pedophiles can really be said to care about "solidarity"? I certainly wouldn't consider someone a peer if they randomly go and call me a pedophile because of where I work. I'm sure 95% of people working there have 0 relation to the algorithm decisions and definitely have no particular fixation on giving teenage girls depression.
  - shimman 4mo ago
    Material outcomes are the only thing that matters, not personal wants or wishes. If you worked as an accountant for Epstein after 2006, then yeah you may not be exactly a pedophile but you have shown you're okay with not only working with pedophiles but having a pedophile actively enrich you. Very few people on this planet are willing to actually do this. Those are Meta are willing to do exactly this. Also solidarity is a two way street and acting as if the literal 1% of earners in the nation will suddenly develop empathy is foolish. I have solidarity for actual workers trying to better society; not for those that exacerbate the climate crisis, help minorities get cancer through data center expansions, personally profit off of scamming seniors, are okay with allowing a genocide on their watch, do nothing to help prevent the erosion of democracy, and have directly caused many suicides/self harm/deaths of despair. They have to commit to a lifetime of repenting and self-flagellation isn't going to cut it. It's not the middle ages.

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