[edanm]

There are in general a lot of different companies doing things which some segment of the population considers immoral. Around HN, things having to do with privacy-violations are often frowned upon by a large percentage of the population here.

I don't always agree with these assessments, and I even less agree that this means you can point to people at various positions in these companies and call them "immoral".

Some people will consistently hold the belief that anyone working at Facebook, or Google, or whatever, are immoral. Most will inconsistently hold that belief - if they're arguing against someone, they'll use this kind of reasoning, but not in general. I'm mostly against this line of thinking in general.

Look - In some corners of HN, having worked with or served in the US military in any capacity is enough to make someone immoral. In some corners, working at a gambling company in any capacity makes you immoral. In some corners, being a doctor in any way related to performing abortions is immoral. In others, taking part in the capitalist system in any way is immoral. I doubt you or anyone agrees with all of these positions - so I think the general rule is that just being associated with something that some portion of people think is immoral is simply not enough to consider someone immoral.

(There are of course things that almost everyone considers immoral, and being associated with them could be enough, though even that barometer is sometimes wrong.)

[DAGdug]

Yeah, there’s no objective and universal barometer for what is or isn’t immoral. I’m providing evidence (as opposed to pulling things out of thin air) for why it’s reasonable for many, or even most, people in the western world to find Guy Rosen immoral. It’s okay for individuals to not find this compelling.