3 ms·

> The rank and file engineers and designers and PMs doing the work were all morally correct people Then why didn't they quit? I believe I could have gotten a

by afavour 3mo ago

> The rank and file engineers and designers and PMs doing the work were all morally correct people Then why didn't they quit? I believe I could have gotten a job at Meta (and hey, maybe I'm wrong!) but I've never been able to stomach the idea of working on their products. If I can choose to avoid working on morally compromising things, why can't they? And look, I get it. If they didn't make it some other engineer would. There's no union or anything that would make resisting it a meaningful cause. But that doesn't mean everyone can absolve themselves of any culpability. They took the (big pile of) money, they did the work.

AlexandrB 3mo ago
“The awful thing about life is this: everyone has their reasons.”
iterateoften 3mo ago
Don’t worry, all employees were morally good people, who chose to stay and make millions from the harm to children they supposedly were resisting. It’s not like meta was a charity. There was a lot of money being made by every one knowing the harm they were doing.
palmotea 3mo ago
>> The rank and file engineers and designers and PMs doing the work were all morally correct people > Then why didn't they quit? I can't speak for those people, but decisions like quitting your job aren't one-dimensional. Quitting a job can create severe hardships for a family, stress relationships to the breaking point, etc. The Bay Area is very expensive, so I'd imagine that's true even for workers making otherwise very good salaries at Facebook. Then consider that the harms caused by Facebook are remote, abstract, and diffuse. Also, making the pushing for the right decision to only get overruled by the people in power can feel like doing enough for many people. Also, there's the frog in a pot effect: a lot of the problems with social media have only become well understood relatively recently. Maybe you'd chose no to join Facebook today, but would stay if you'd already worked there for 10 years. > If I can choose to avoid working on morally compromising things, why can't they? What other morally compromising things have you not chosen to avoid? The modern world is full of them, many of them well publicized even if they're not in-your-face. IMHO, it's impossible to avoid them all without killing yourself.
- lazide 3mo ago
  So you’re saying hard decisions… are hard for reasons? No shit Sherlock. They made them a specific way, and will be stained with the consequences, because they were cowards who took the easy way out.
  - palmotea 3mo ago
    > They made them a specific way, and will be stained with the consequences, because they were cowards who took the easy way out. One thing I've gotten tired of as I've gotten older is self-righteous judgement like that, when directed at the rank-and-file. Your assignment: carefully inspect your life, and enumerate all the things which you are "stained with the consequences, because [you] were [a] coward who took the easy way out." There are lots because you're a human living in the modern world. Then, before you join the peanut gallery to judge smoeone, remember that guy's like you. Sure, judge leaders like Zuckerberg like that, the buck stops with him, and his lieutenants who support his vision, and associates with "fuck you" money. But regular folks who need a job who try to do the right thing within their scope but are overridden? Come on.
    - lazide 3mo ago
      ‘Just following orders’ is derided for a reason. What do you think that actually looks like? The same damn thing. What do you think the scientists working at big tobacco said to themselves? The same damn thing. The system won’t work without the ‘little people’ doing all the day to day. This is, quite literally, the ‘banality of evil’.
      - palmotea 3mo ago
        > ‘Just following orders’ is derided for a reason. For things like murdering people and genocide. When you're talking about controversial/gray areas, where there is no crime or clear consensus on punishable immorality, then no. Expand that concept too far, too zealously, and you might as well shoot everyone because everyone's guilty. The world ain't black and white.
smugma 3mo ago
2017-2019… it sounds like maybe he did quit.

by afavour 3mo ago

AlexandrB 3mo ago

“The awful thing about life is this: everyone has their reasons.”

iterateoften 3mo ago

Don’t worry, all employees were morally good people, who chose to stay and make millions from the harm to children they supposedly were resisting. It’s not like meta was a charity. There was a lot of money being made by every one knowing the harm they were doing.

palmotea 3mo ago

>> The rank and file engineers and designers and PMs doing the work were all morally correct people > Then why didn't they quit? I can't speak for those people, but decisions like quitting your job aren't one-dimensional. Quitting a job can create severe hardships for a family, stress relationships to the breaking point, etc. The Bay Area is very expensive, so I'd imagine that's true even for workers making otherwise very good salaries at Facebook. Then consider that the harms caused by Facebook are remote, abstract, and diffuse. Also, making the pushing for the right decision to only get overruled by the people in power can feel like doing enough for many people. Also, there's the frog in a pot effect: a lot of the problems with social media have only become well understood relatively recently. Maybe you'd chose no to join Facebook today, but would stay if you'd already worked there for 10 years. > If I can choose to avoid working on morally compromising things, why can't they? What other morally compromising things have you not chosen to avoid? The modern world is full of them, many of them well publicized even if they're not in-your-face. IMHO, it's impossible to avoid them all without killing yourself.

lazide 3mo ago
So you’re saying hard decisions… are hard for reasons? No shit Sherlock. They made them a specific way, and will be stained with the consequences, because they were cowards who took the easy way out.
- palmotea 3mo ago
  > They made them a specific way, and will be stained with the consequences, because they were cowards who took the easy way out. One thing I've gotten tired of as I've gotten older is self-righteous judgement like that, when directed at the rank-and-file. Your assignment: carefully inspect your life, and enumerate all the things which you are "stained with the consequences, because [you] were [a] coward who took the easy way out." There are lots because you're a human living in the modern world. Then, before you join the peanut gallery to judge smoeone, remember that guy's like you. Sure, judge leaders like Zuckerberg like that, the buck stops with him, and his lieutenants who support his vision, and associates with "fuck you" money. But regular folks who need a job who try to do the right thing within their scope but are overridden? Come on.
  - lazide 3mo ago
    ‘Just following orders’ is derided for a reason. What do you think that actually looks like? The same damn thing. What do you think the scientists working at big tobacco said to themselves? The same damn thing. The system won’t work without the ‘little people’ doing all the day to day. This is, quite literally, the ‘banality of evil’.
    - palmotea 3mo ago
      > ‘Just following orders’ is derided for a reason. For things like murdering people and genocide. When you're talking about controversial/gray areas, where there is no crime or clear consensus on punishable immorality, then no. Expand that concept too far, too zealously, and you might as well shoot everyone because everyone's guilty. The world ain't black and white.

smugma 3mo ago

2017-2019… it sounds like maybe he did quit.