[yieldcrv]

Companies and founders are different, we are talking about the individuals and their ability to have done anything differently. All of the founders of the companies you listed had a choice to avoid doing an action seen as exploitative action their company is also known for. This is exclusive from the positive way that different people's lives were impacted.

Amazon, really? Just CTRL+F the frontpage of HN any day. Today they are sicking police on employees to bust unions.

Microsoft, Google, Meta, Telsa, and ... who?

Is this the argument you really want to have? One of arbitrary relative impact? The one where I point out how Standard Oil employed 100,000 people directly too?

Interesting way of compartmentalizing based on what you chose to respect.

The way to have this argument is to determine if anybody else can collect this much money today starting these businesses - whether as competitors or in the absence of those companies existence. As an example, take Google and Meta: You can't trade the same number of user's data and broker it, legally, because major economic unions prohibit this or have greatly increased the financial liability for doing so. Your overhead costs are higher before convincing Private Equity to package you up and dump your shares on the public market. Find the same for other founders/companies you chose to weigh positively based on unrelated actions.