[TulliusCicero]

If they were torturing puppies then sure, but the context of this discussion is bad customer service. Having subpar customer service seems to be typical for corporations (and governments) in general, so no, it doesn't trigger my instinct to leave. Especially when the issue is providing customer support at scale to millions, if not billions of users (many of whom don't actually directly pay anything).

I wouldn't leave a company just because execs there seems vaguely anti-union either, even though I think unions are good, because again, that's most companies.

> By supporting the "strategic decision by management" you implicitly approve of it.

You could say that about a lot of things. Your government does something bad and you don't immediately hightail it to the next city/state/country? I guess that means you implicitly approve.

[kelnos]

> (many of whom don't actually directly pay anything)

They are paying, though, with their habits and user data. That's not direct payment, but I don't think the distinction matters. Someone with a Google or Facebook account does pay. Not in currency, certainly, but having those people on the platform is certainly valuable to Google and Facebook, because they monetize their presence in other ways.

[TulliusCicero]

Correct, they're still a source of revenue, they're a customer. But legitimately good customer service is expensive, and it may not be viable to provide it even for marginal customers

[Repulsion9513]

> Especially when the issue is providing customer support at scale to millions, if not billions of users (many of whom don't actually directly pay anything).

What about those who do pay? Cause I can promise you, you don't get any better support, even if you're paying them tens or hundreds of thousands a year. Maybe if you're paying them millions.

And the context here is NOT customer support, the context is cutting people off from their friends and family because the AI was wrong.