4 ms·

Zuck was gagging for the Trump 2nd term so he could go all in on this shit. Slow clap for the Meta employees that enable it.

asdvsadnvs 2mo ago
[flagged]
- beezlewax 2mo ago
  > do you expect everyone to agree with your moral code and quit their job Yes. This would be ideal.
  - wpietri 2mo ago
    And second best would be these people owning their moral vacuity. I can sort of respect a response like, "Yeah, I like Zuckerberg's money and I don't give a shit about the harm I'm enabling. I'll keep cashing my checks and being an asshole." It's the people who expect us to pretend they're not asshole that get to me. They want the upside of bad behavior without the downside. Sorry bub, FAFO.
    - AlexandrB 2mo ago
      > And second best would be these people owning their moral vacuity. So anyone who does not agree with you is morally vacuous? Very convenient. Prevents you from ever having to question your own morality.
- nancyminusone 2mo ago
  Somebody implemented this. If you did, you did, and I don't think you should be allowed to claim you didn't.
- darig 2mo ago
  [dead]
- mhax 2mo ago
  Terrible take. Trying to moral gymnastics your way out of taking responsibility for who you work for. If you're working at meta it's unlikely to be your only good option. Yes, the janitors get a pass.
  - lokar 2mo ago
    I doubt the janitors actually work for Meta
- pyrale 2mo ago
  > Even if its an engineer that's making 6 figures that you are liekly alluding to, do you expect everyone to agree with your moral code and quit their job? No, but you shouldn't expect to see them addressed with respect either, just like Enron traders, Purdue salesmen or tobacco scientists don't get a lot of it.
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
  > What if you are a cook or a plumber or a janitor at Meta who has no idea One, do better. Two, the vitriol is obviously aimed at Meta’s white-collar employees. (Anecdotally, it’s getting harder for them to date.)
  - edgyquant 2mo ago
    “Anecdotally” this is not the case, it’s getting harder for everyone to date meta employees are not doing worse than anyone else and with their income likely the opposite
    - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
      > it’s getting harder for everyone to date meta employees are not doing worse Anecdotally, I know several women and a few men in New York and the Bay Area who have drawn a line on dating anyone at Meta. They want to raise families and don’t feel comfortable with someone with those values. None of them are woke or leftist. One of them worked there. All of them make good money. If I were dating today, I don’t think I’d date someone who chooses to continue working there. (Unless they were doing research.) And I don’t have a lot of those limits.
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    > Anecdotally, it’s getting harder for them to date I wonder how much of this is the reputation, and how much is the same thing over all society in recent years. (Alternative narrative: everyone else is fine and the news stories about this are all driven by people at Meta having above-average influence on the news reporting and/or who is going to participate in the surveys).
- JohnFen 2mo ago
  If you work for a company, you are enabling that company's practices. If those practices are bad and you are aware of them, then continuing to work there means your hands are dirty too. People have, of course, every right to make such a decision based on their own ethical sensibilities. I have every right to judge them based on mine.
  - forestrywat 2mo ago
    These big companies have orgs within them that do, e.g., charitable work. Or work on standards or open source. Or accessibility or inclusion or other work to genuinely improve lives. How does your judgement apply to folks who attach their altruistic efforts to the funding and reach of a big company? I would understand if you said, "Nope, still equally responsible" or if you said, "Relatively less worried about these folks". Genuinely interested in hearing thoughts about these orgs at big companies.
    - JohnFen 2mo ago
      Doing good deeds does not absolve anyone of their bad deeds. > How does your judgement apply to folks who attach their altruistic efforts to the funding and reach of a big company? If it's getting the company to fund your altruistic efforts and isn't benefiting that company, then it's not contributing to the bad deeds. Otherwise, it is. Either way, if you're working for the company, then you're still enabling them. Whether or not you participate in internal do-gooding efforts doesn't change that.
- wpietri 2mo ago
  Everyone has the moral obligation to not enable or profit from harm. Do we all live up perfectly to that all the time? No. There's no meaningful moral rule where people can do that. If there were, it wouldn't be worth having as a moral rule. Is Zuckerberg responsible for the harm he's causing? Yes. Are the workers enabling that responsible? Yes. Are the people who profit from indirectly supporting that responsible? Yes. Responsibility is not zero sum.
  - AlexandrB 2mo ago
    "Harm" is a mushy term that means everything and nothing. There are many competing definitions of "harm" based on one's cultural, religious, and philosophical priors. So what kind of harm are you talking about exactly?
    - wpietri 2mo ago
      That any particular thing is harmful can be a worthwhile discussion, one that has been going on for centuries and will continue for centuries more. The notion that nothing is harmful is idiotic, so I presume you're not claiming that. As long as we agree that harm to others exists, my point stands. If you'd like the details, I suggest you consult said centuries of dialog. But in practice, it's pretty clear that people can and do come to useful decisions on the nature of harm all the time.
- malfist 2mo ago
  > There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus -- and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it -- that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all!!
  - lostlogin 2mo ago
    For those like me that didn’t know, Mario Savio. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mario_Savio https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mario_Savio
- freejazz 2mo ago
  Shame on anyone that works for Meta!

asdvsadnvs 2mo ago

[flagged]

beezlewax 2mo ago
> do you expect everyone to agree with your moral code and quit their job Yes. This would be ideal.
- wpietri 2mo ago
  And second best would be these people owning their moral vacuity. I can sort of respect a response like, "Yeah, I like Zuckerberg's money and I don't give a shit about the harm I'm enabling. I'll keep cashing my checks and being an asshole." It's the people who expect us to pretend they're not asshole that get to me. They want the upside of bad behavior without the downside. Sorry bub, FAFO.
  - AlexandrB 2mo ago
    > And second best would be these people owning their moral vacuity. So anyone who does not agree with you is morally vacuous? Very convenient. Prevents you from ever having to question your own morality.
nancyminusone 2mo ago
Somebody implemented this. If you did, you did, and I don't think you should be allowed to claim you didn't.
darig 2mo ago
[dead]
mhax 2mo ago
Terrible take. Trying to moral gymnastics your way out of taking responsibility for who you work for. If you're working at meta it's unlikely to be your only good option. Yes, the janitors get a pass.
- lokar 2mo ago
  I doubt the janitors actually work for Meta
pyrale 2mo ago
> Even if its an engineer that's making 6 figures that you are liekly alluding to, do you expect everyone to agree with your moral code and quit their job? No, but you shouldn't expect to see them addressed with respect either, just like Enron traders, Purdue salesmen or tobacco scientists don't get a lot of it.
JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
> What if you are a cook or a plumber or a janitor at Meta who has no idea One, do better. Two, the vitriol is obviously aimed at Meta’s white-collar employees. (Anecdotally, it’s getting harder for them to date.)
- edgyquant 2mo ago
  “Anecdotally” this is not the case, it’s getting harder for everyone to date meta employees are not doing worse than anyone else and with their income likely the opposite
  - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
    > it’s getting harder for everyone to date meta employees are not doing worse Anecdotally, I know several women and a few men in New York and the Bay Area who have drawn a line on dating anyone at Meta. They want to raise families and don’t feel comfortable with someone with those values. None of them are woke or leftist. One of them worked there. All of them make good money. If I were dating today, I don’t think I’d date someone who chooses to continue working there. (Unless they were doing research.) And I don’t have a lot of those limits.
- ben_w 2mo ago
  > Anecdotally, it’s getting harder for them to date I wonder how much of this is the reputation, and how much is the same thing over all society in recent years. (Alternative narrative: everyone else is fine and the news stories about this are all driven by people at Meta having above-average influence on the news reporting and/or who is going to participate in the surveys).
JohnFen 2mo ago
If you work for a company, you are enabling that company's practices. If those practices are bad and you are aware of them, then continuing to work there means your hands are dirty too. People have, of course, every right to make such a decision based on their own ethical sensibilities. I have every right to judge them based on mine.
- forestrywat 2mo ago
  These big companies have orgs within them that do, e.g., charitable work. Or work on standards or open source. Or accessibility or inclusion or other work to genuinely improve lives. How does your judgement apply to folks who attach their altruistic efforts to the funding and reach of a big company? I would understand if you said, "Nope, still equally responsible" or if you said, "Relatively less worried about these folks". Genuinely interested in hearing thoughts about these orgs at big companies.
  - JohnFen 2mo ago
    Doing good deeds does not absolve anyone of their bad deeds. > How does your judgement apply to folks who attach their altruistic efforts to the funding and reach of a big company? If it's getting the company to fund your altruistic efforts and isn't benefiting that company, then it's not contributing to the bad deeds. Otherwise, it is. Either way, if you're working for the company, then you're still enabling them. Whether or not you participate in internal do-gooding efforts doesn't change that.
wpietri 2mo ago
Everyone has the moral obligation to not enable or profit from harm. Do we all live up perfectly to that all the time? No. There's no meaningful moral rule where people can do that. If there were, it wouldn't be worth having as a moral rule. Is Zuckerberg responsible for the harm he's causing? Yes. Are the workers enabling that responsible? Yes. Are the people who profit from indirectly supporting that responsible? Yes. Responsibility is not zero sum.
- AlexandrB 2mo ago
  "Harm" is a mushy term that means everything and nothing. There are many competing definitions of "harm" based on one's cultural, religious, and philosophical priors. So what kind of harm are you talking about exactly?
  - wpietri 2mo ago
    That any particular thing is harmful can be a worthwhile discussion, one that has been going on for centuries and will continue for centuries more. The notion that nothing is harmful is idiotic, so I presume you're not claiming that. As long as we agree that harm to others exists, my point stands. If you'd like the details, I suggest you consult said centuries of dialog. But in practice, it's pretty clear that people can and do come to useful decisions on the nature of harm all the time.
malfist 2mo ago
> There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus -- and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it -- that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all!!
- lostlogin 2mo ago
  For those like me that didn’t know, Mario Savio. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mario_Savio https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mario_Savio
freejazz 2mo ago
Shame on anyone that works for Meta!