[echelon]

I wonder what would happen if Tim Cook said they were no longer going to hire Facebook engineers as a matter of principle.

They could say something like, "if you're willing to sacrifice your ethics to work for a company that spies on people, you can't be trusted with our product."

Not a lifetime ban, but perhaps a 5 year ban from working at Apple after having had a tenure at Facebook. Maybe they could waive the ban for candidates that publicly renounced Facebook's practices.

It'll never happen, but if it did I imagine the effects on Facebook hiring and retention would be chilling.

Sort of a reverse Brian Armstrong.

[saagarjha]

But what of the chilling effects on Apple’s hiring? Do we really want to start turf wars where companies can essentially reenact anti-poaching laws and the associated depression in mobility but spin it as being principled?

[echelon]

I'd worry more about wages dropping due to WFH and creation of a "pay-adjusted" distributed workforce.

I'd also worry about the monopolistic behavior of the incumbents making it harder for challengers to succeed, creating less diversity in work or employment.

Principled stands won't happen. Profits matter, not morals or ethics. It's better for them to maximize the workforce pool and keep them fungible.

[tjpnz]

>Not a lifetime ban, but perhaps a 5 year ban from working at Apple after having had a tenure at Facebook.

Japan has something similar for Yakuza members who are defined as "anti social forces" with a cooling off period of 7 years. FWIW I find the idea when applied to Facebook rather appealing.

[etaioinshrdlu]

I like this. I wonder if this is actually legal, though.

[foogazi]

> I wonder what would happen if Tim Cook said they were no longer going to hire Facebook engineers

Didn’t Steve Jobs already do this?

[paxys]

Yeah except in that case it was illegal collusion rather than principle