[bmalehorn]

It sounds like you're skeptical about companies that affect people's habits. So avoid these terms:

- finance

- advertising

- entertainment

I'd focus on companies that sell to other businesses. Changing the habits of businesses is usually considered a good thing.

And sell something less abstract. If you sell laptops, routers or office chairs, nobody's going to think you're a bad person. Just maybe a bit boring.

Software-only products are all about information. It's about gathering information about people (gray area) or understanding lots of information about people (gray area). So work for a company that does something in the physical world.

[_bxg1]

> skeptical about companies that affect people's habits

I would rephrase as companies whose express intent is to manipulate people's habits for their own gain. Entertainment is fine as long as it's done in relative good-faith (not gambling or manipulative microtransactions). Though the game dev sphere isn't a great job market right now for unrelated reasons.

> It's about gathering information about people (gray area) or understanding lots of information about people (gray area).

That's a very narrow lens. Software can also be about gathering and understanding information about the non-human world, for scientific reasons or otherwise. It can be about empowering people to manage and utilize their own information. It can be about empowering people to create new information. The key question is whether or not the intent is to make someone's life worse in order to make money.

[bmalehorn]

> I would rephrase as companies whose express intent is to manipulate people's habits for their own gain. Entertainment is fine as long as it's done in relative good-faith (not gambling or manipulative microtransactions).

Wondering - is Netflix a good company? On one hand, they're a straightforward entertainment company, but on the other hand they optimize content and suggestions on maximizing viewing hours. Their goal is to change habits to watch more and more Netflix.

How about Apple? They sell hardware and software that people like and they try to respect user privacy. But they design their software to aggressively lock users into their own platform and prevent them from trying competitors.

> It can be about empowering people to manage and utilize their own information. It can be about empowering people to create new information.

This is almost exactly Google's mission statement, but most people here would put Google in the gray area.

My point is, almost no company's goal is to make peoples' lives worse. But all companies are fundamentally trying to manipulate people to buy more of their product. The question is if most customers feel good about the company after the transaction, if they feel like they were manipulated "too much".

[_bxg1]

Netflix is a good example, because it can be contrasted with Hulu. Netflix uses aggressive dark patterns like auto-playing trailers to push content on you; people have repeatedly asked for the option to turn these off and Netflix refuses, because it gets people to watch more. They've made the express choice to rob their users of agency for the sake of increasing engagement. Hulu, on the other hand... doesn't do that. I'm not saying they're saints, but their interface respects user-agency.