[po7w0toqweug]

Not a employee, and I like my data to be safe and not exploited as much as anyone. But, let me try to take a swing at this.

First, obviously there is the money factor, you may choose to ignore it but it is a big factor for many.

Second, the tech is truly state of the art and it is good experience/skill to have/pickup.

Third, I'd say almost everyone passing judgement about people taking up such jobs also judge having such jobs on your resume as a positive. That drives one's value as a candidate up even post such a job. If people care so much why don't they provide an incentive, would you hire someone who turned down such a job compared to someone who gained experience in such a job? No one ever asked me - so which jobs offers did you discard and why, during any interview.

Fourth, almost every big company has its scandals, now how does one decide which ideal is worth giving up job offer for, is big financial ok? is big pharma ok? is big tech ok? is big anything ok? is working on open source in such a big something ok, say open source software others use at their jobs? is a start up using questionable practices to get to the next level ok? define what's ok according to you, and why do you expect that would be the same for everyone else.

[jka]

Which technology at Facebook is state of the art?

I'd wager that for any area you pick - they probably have a lot of high-end technology relating to image/video storage, data replication, machine learning, and network-layer infrastructure - there are other more morally and ethically sound places where engineers could learn and apply that same knowledge.

We're already reaching the point where working for toxic companies is considered a negative during resume review; I won't provide any such examples here but the bay area tech scene is full of examples of environments where being a former employee at a company can at least warrant raised eyebrows.

Scandals may occur; what matters is how the organization responds to them. And yes it's certainly acceptable to leave an organization if you're not happy with the way it has handled such situations.

The only point I find difficult to disagree with in your comment is the monetary motivation.

[po7w0toqweug]

>Which technology at Facebook is state of the art?

Say data at scale, petabytes of data for example. I'd be curious to know if you can name all companies that have this scale of data and are morally acceptable to you. :) Google? Amazon?

> Scandals may occur; what matters is how the organization responds to them. And yes it's certainly acceptable to leave an organization if you're not happy with the way it has handled such situations.

While I can see your point of view, as an engineer you can find other opportunities that may not be as lucrative but are comparably still good. But, I also find it hard that its the engineers that get this judgement regularly on HN while you give users and shareholders a free pass. A scandal surfaces, repeatedly, users and shareholders don't care, nothing changes and for some reason that's ok while engineers are expected to be the moral compass. Wonder how many judging here use instagram/whatsapp/fb and/or own stock in such companies, perhaps even have family and friends that continue to use these services but somehow, I guess, its easier to judge strangers and expect them to behave a certain way instead.

[jka]

For me personally, none of the 'really' major tech companies are; I don't desperately enough need to work on the very cutting edge to trade-off against morality. But I'm not innocent either, most actions have (ideally unintended, and later rectified) negative externalities.

It'd be an interesting discussion to have with someone who feels like they really need to stay at the very peak of private data accumulation - because in my view those actions are potentially very detrimental to wider society, certainly depending on the culture. I'd extend more respect to Google than the others from what I've seen, although opinions may vary elsewhere.

Regarding scandals and reactions - users and shareholders can and do care, and they vote with their feet, or wallets, or ideally both.

The battlefield in these cases is over how much truth about the scandal and resolution are published. A good organization will generally tend towards more transparency in both, while perhaps keeping a few cards close so that they can react to any potential retaliation (such is the world of rapid fake news that we live in).

Edit: s/data accumulation/private data accumulation/

[JohnFen]

> would you hire someone who turned down such a job compared to someone who gained experience in such a job?

Yes, I would. At this point, willing taking a job at Facebook is a bit of a red flag about the potential employee's ethics.