[ryandrake]

Surely there are employees at Meta who are not making the world a worse place. There may even be people in technical roles who are not. I can imagine Meta probably has some kind of ethics or privacy department (what a demoralizing place to do that kind of work!) who are even trying against the tide to do good! You can't just use "worked at Meta" as the filter. I'd want to know exactly what they worked on, and have them explain their ethical rationale for continuing.

[grepfru_it]

>I’d want to know exactly what they worked on, and have them explain their ethical rationale for continuing.

Now I’m imagining I meet someone who is on the other side of the interview table having these thoughts. Are my capabilities ignored because they are already prejudiced to a decision I made years prior? What if my answer, trying to improve issues from within, is not good enough?

This new world is scary..

[ryandrake]

I guess this is just a risk that you have to accept when you decide to work somewhere like Meta. I wouldn't accept a job at Philip Morris for the same reason.

[SpicyLemonZest]

It's a risk you have to accept when you work anywhere, I suppose. There are plenty of people across the industry who will judge you based on stereotypes of where you've worked in the past and what they think that implies about you.

Personally, I think that's a bad hiring practice, deterministically leading to worse employees and a more toxic culture. But I know that people who engage in it generally have some argument for why they can't or shouldn't impartially evaluate every interview.

[grepfru_it]

Karma will catch up to you

[tripzilch]

> What if my answer, trying to improve issues from within, is not good enough?

lol, did you?