How often do you see doctors being hired that are not members of the AMA (or similar professional associations)? Their Code Of Medical Ethics[1] isn't perfect and certainly there individuals that have ignored it for $REASONS, but at least they have created a culture where it is expected that doctors will at least try to avoid unethical behavior.
> only hire them?
I suspect this is the knee-jerk hostility toward unions I was referring to. If a strong union was created that only addressed ethical behavior, how long would Facebook be able to hire from a dwindling pool of non-members? The entire point of a union is that it's a way to put pressure against specific business practices.
Dwindling pool of non-members: Facebook is an especially bad example here, because they have enough money and clout to get around this.
How often do you see doctors being hired that are not members of the AMA: Doctors need to be on location, but this restriction doesn't apply to software. Facebook can always find talent in a country that doesn't have an 'AMA.'
More importantly: You don't need to hire only amoral people. You just need enough people with "flexible" enough morals to be able to justify actions that in themselves may not even seem particularly amoral in suitable positions to be able to get certain types of functionality built without having to hand it to the staunch defenders of morality...
In most organisations "everyone" will know who are "difficult" when it comes to dealing with privacy and other issues. Sometimes that means they are the ones you go to, when you e.g. want to be certain everything is right. But if you have something you think is ok but you think they will raise issues with, they will just go to someone more "flexible" in the organisation instead.
Unless the organisational culture itself strictly punishes this kind of behaviour and rewards protecting privacy even in instances were doing so might hurt revenue, there will be plenty of room for amoral people to find each other and "work around" safeguards
Day 1; "Here at Facebook, we're only hiring amoral people from now on!"
Day 87; Facebook declares bankruptcy. None of the money can be found. The servers have already been stolen by the surviving employees. Administrators arrive at HQ to find only a few broken chairs and a vast pile of shredded paper.
(to explain the joke, there is a downside to hiring amoral people)
Amoral people aren't always stupid. Amoral cops refuse bribes when the (probability of being caught) * (cost of losing their job) is above the bribe amount, and parasitic employees know they will earn more long term if they don't kill the host company.
If Facebook takes care to only hire smart amoral people they will last much more than 87 days.
> If there is one thing our world does not lack, it's amoral people. Would you prefer that Facebook only hire them?
If they are currently hiring only amoral people and people who are afraid of expressing their moral outrage, then there is absolutely no difference than if they were just hiring amoral people to start with.
Isn't there? Do you see no possibility that the latter group might find cause to overcome their fear?
I mean, to be clear, I still think this whole line of discussion around the imaginary (im/a)morality of Facebook employees is pretty far off base. But the question bears asking all the same.
> only hire them?
I suspect this is the knee-jerk hostility toward unions I was referring to. If a strong union was created that only addressed ethical behavior, how long would Facebook be able to hire from a dwindling pool of non-members? The entire point of a union is that it's a way to put pressure against specific business practices.