[throwitawayfb]

I've just been given an offer from Facebook and I have a few days to decide to take the job or not. The ethical implications of what I'm doing are intense. On one hand, a near 400k total comp package is very nice, but on the other hand I don't want to make the world worse off. I think if I could make that kind of money working from home for another company it'd be an easier decision. Unfortunately, I have to play the hand I'm dealt.

[baby]

I’m obviously biased since I work there, but I had the exact same concerns before starting two years ago. In reality things are much more different that what HN makes it sound like. There’s all sorts of people, and not everyone agree, and much like the current climate in the US people are getting more and more polarized. I think it’s pretty awesome that everyone in the company is free to express themselves and debate and openly challenge management during Q&As and other events, but I also recognize that at some point the debates can turn toxic and I can see why we would want to avoid that. Once you realize how things work from the inside, you realize that the majority of people do want to make the world a better place, and that it’s easy to pick on things that didn’t work quite well and forget all of the positive sides that social networks have brought to the world. You can tell me that I’m drinking the kool aid but IMO internally things are really not at all like HN likes to portray it everyday.

[Reedx]

> Once you realize how things work from the inside, you realize that the majority of people do want to make the world a better place

It's hard to square that with the algorithmic feed, likes, etc, which are making the world worse every single day in favor of engagement metrics. We've known for many years how destructive these are.

Facebook and Twitter could literally make the world a better place simply by disabling those kind of features. Just remove them. It doesn't get easier than that to substantially improve the world, yet it's not being done.

[luckylion]

> Facebook and Twitter could literally make the world a better place simply by disabling those kind of features. Just remove them.

I'm not sure about that. I agree that the world might be better, but I'm not sure they could just disable them. The next smaller competitor who won't will have more user engagement and grow. If something is a very effective advantage, I believe you can only remove it by coordinated action and enforce it on a global scale.

Modern weapons are terribly efficient at killing people. But if you're the only country that's removing them from your arsenal, you depend on the mercy of your neighbors.

[tpxl]

Ah yes, the "if we don't do it, someone else will" defense, that has been shown to have merit time and time again.

If you don't want to make the world a worse place, you don't do it. Hiding behind such logic means you're really just virtue signalling.

[jakear]

This doesn’t need to be a secret flipped switch. It could be a very public announcement, which lots of supporting data and arguments. Nobody is going to build a successful competitor to FB based off of “we’re doing the same thing that Facebook just very publicly stopped doing because they took a stand against its society-destroying implications”.

[luckylion]

Maybe, but I have doubts. Nobody likes predatory lending, but it's still a blossoming industry. I believe that works for small things, but if the advantage is large enough, somebody will step up and do it.

And it's not like people don't like it. They "want" to be engaged, to feel anger and surprise etc, those systems work because they're catering to peoples' instincts and desires.

[ciarannolan]

I don't think the question is really about how the internal politics of Facebook work. The question is whether you should devote years of your limited working time and your talent to make the world a worse place to live in (which I think FB almost certainly does).

[baby]

And I’ll say that you’re entitled to your opinion. If you do think that, then indeed I would not recommend to join. If you are on the verge, like I was, then my advice is to join because you will be surprised to see that it’s not what you thought it was.

[ciarannolan]

It may not be what you think it was internally, but it's negative externalities are there for the world to see.

[baby]

What about the upsides?

[ciarannolan]

Also there for the world to see. I just think on balance Facebook is a force for social destruction and individual harm on a scale never even imagined.

I looked at your blog; you seem like a talented, driven person. Why not apply those gifts to something meaningful? Why spend your limited working years building tools for this horrible company?

[cheeze]

Heavily outwieghed by the downsides.

Facebook has done a lot of good, but IMO there is no question that it's done more harm.

And Zuckerberg is a crazy person. There are a lot of people I wouldn't want to ultimately report to, but Zuck is right next to Larry at this point.

[kelnos]

It's great that y'all discuss this sort of thing internally, but at the end of the day, FB and similar platforms have increased polarization, addicted users, eroded privacy, and allowed state actors to influence elections. And that's the incredibly short list.

Whatever internal discussions you're having, they're not working. I'd posit that they can't work, because FB's entire business model is predicated on user-hostile, polarizing behavior, whether anyone internally will admit it or not.

It frankly does not matter one bit what things are like internally when externally we can see the harm FB has caused, and there is zero evidence that harm is going to stop.

[throwitawayfb]

Thanks for your perspective, it helps.

[thurn]

I suggest you try and talk to some people who actually get positive value out of Facebook for an alternate perspective. The HN audience (mostly young, nerdy white men) have always been one of the worst demographics for social networking products, and they might give you the impression that it's strictly bad for society because they don't personally derive any benefit from it. But if you step outside of that group, you will find there are actually a lot of people whose lives are enriched by social products.

Incidentally, this is why Google+ failed -- it was a social network marketed to the kind of people that hate social networking :)

[PaulStatezny]

> The HN audience (mostly young, nerdy white men) have always been one of the worst demographics for social networking products...

Wow, that's a very racist/sexist statement and you don't even leave a hint about why you think it's true. Worse, it reads like you expect it to be obvious. What about a person's gender or skin makes them "a bad demographic for social networking"?

Edit: Also presumptuous of you about the HN crowd. Where would you even get those statistics? HN doesn't collect that data.

[fblifeadvice645]

As someone who also feels they’re evil (left 5+ years ago), I will grant that it’s not all bad like many here like to think. I imagine many small businesses and nonprofits derive a lot of value from their community building and targeted advertising, which is (maybe) a good thing.

That being said, it’s a good idea to understand why the pay is so high (and it’s not because they’re nice people who only want the best for their employees):

You will be expected to leave moral qualms at the door. This an unwritten rule at many companies, but Facebook had to write it. That says something.

You will be expected to work for it. Hard. The people I know at Facebook easily put in 1.5-2x the hours I do at a FAANG-ish (late nights and weekends seem to be the norm), but get paid roughly 1.5-2x what I do. If that’s a tradeoff you’re willing to make, go for it. I however am making more money than I know what to do with, and thus value all the time I’m not working (hobbies, travel, side projects, etc) way more than the money I’d make from working during that time.

At the end of the day you aren’t going to singlehandedly destroy the fabric of society all that much in your first year, so you’re fine making the above sacrifices for a year or two for some quick cash then fucking off to pursue some real interests, go for it. But I sincerely warn you against sacrificing too much of your life (youth especially) and morals for money —- it really isn’t as valuable as it’s cracked up to be.

[ciarannolan]

Do what you know is right. What you can live with and be proud of.

It sounds like, from reading your comment a couple times, you know what is right but are tempted to ignore that and take the cash.

[jgacook]

If you're being offered a $400K comp package I can say with a lot of certainty that you have not been dealt a hand and are, in fact, a highly skilled worker with a great many options for employment, so sincere congratulations on your success!

It's therefore hard to see how taking this offer would not be choosing to sell your ethics for money and success, given that you could likely land a well paid job anywhere.

[kelnos]

> Unfortunately, I have to play the hand I'm dealt.

Usually you see someone say something like this when they're presented with truly awful options. Seeing it used to refer to a $400k comp package is a bit jarring.

And if you've made it through FB's hiring process and they've given you an attractive offer, I find it hard to believe you don't have other options that don't involve a big ethical quandary, or wouldn't if you interviewed around more.

[skinkestek]

I'm actually in a different position:

I used to loathe Facebook and like Google. These days both seems about the same. Facebooks policy to leave people alone deeply resonates with me even though I still dislike them intensely for what they did to WhatsApp.

And for what it is worth, Facebook unlike Google hasn't insulted me for a decade with the ads they show.

[tanilama]

Not intense at all.

As a screw in the Facebook machine, your significance is trivial. This is true regardless of your intention.

Get over the ethnical drama I would say. Big tech is about as ethnical as banks. In another word, the companies don't care, and they are probably not.

[bendoernberg]

How much less would you make working at another, less evil company?

[throwitawayfb]

Unknown. No other company has recruited me and made me an offer.

[trhway]

Don't sell yourself that cheap, ask for 600k. Once you get it, your doubts will disappear just like by magic.

[jballer]

I work at FB. I wouldn’t want to be working alongside people who think I’m a mercenary abdicating my moral precepts. And I wouldn’t expect that of my colleagues. So my guess is that you could get away with it easily, but you‘d be doing a disservice to yourself and your team.

[throwitawayfb]

No, I certainly wouldn't think of my coworkers as mercenaries for hire, as that's a very simplistic worldview that I don't subscribe to. My net concern is: Will me working at FB be a net good, neutral, or bad for society? I'm fine with neutral, I just don't want it to be a net bad.

[evgen]

I think it is somewhat clear at this point that it is net bad. While I cannot comment on the claims made by some FB employees rising to defend their own moral choices I can say that I left FB when the consequences of my work on personal privacy could no longer be ignored. Luckily for me (I guess...) this was before it became clear that there was also the long-term destructive effect that FB has on democracy and civil society to deal with, but I think you should know that working there is always going to involve compromising your morals and ethics. You and your co-workers will be surrounded by a lot of motivational posters and routinely be told how your work is serving some nebulous positive benefit, but it will be a lie.

I have worked for a lot of start-ups, including several that grew to become significant giants in their segment of the internet. Facebook has been the only one I worked at where there was a group of employees whose job was to create posters to hang up in all of the offices telling everyone else how important and worthwhile it was to work at FB -- looking back I think this level of internal propaganda should have been a warning sign.

[3131s]

> abdicating my moral precepts

Sounds like there's nothing left to abdicate.

[chmaynard]

Consult a lawyer for advice on the legal implications of being directed to work on projects that either violate the law or your own ethical principles. The lawyer can help you draft an employment contract that protects you from retaliation if you object. If Facebook refuses to sign the contract, walk away.

[emtel]

Someone should make a museum of bizarre advice found on HN.

No normal company is going to sign _any_ contract provided by a prospective full-time employee (except perhaps if you are a sought after celebrity being hired at a VP level or above), so it would just be a waste of time and money for someone to take your advice.

Even if the hiring manager personally wanted to, there is no process for doing this. They don't have lawyers standing by to review such contracts. It would probably be hard to even find out who would have the authority to sign such a contract.

Further, retaliating against whistle-blowers is already illegal, as is ordering employees to break laws, so I don't know what additional protection you imagine you would get from such a contract.

[chmaynard]

> No normal company is going to sign _any_ contract provided by a prospective full-time employee

Agreed. To take my advice, you would need to be hired as a contractor/consultant. Normal companies do this all the time.