[yojo]

Meta is straight evil. It undermines the institutions of democracy and it negatively impacts its users mental health, all in service of selling your data to advertisers so they can better goad unnecessary consumption.

If I learn you work at Meta, I will judge you as at best lacking a moral compass and treat you appropriately.

Apple has problems, but is a lot closer to morally neutral. Ditto for Netflix.

Amazon has hollowed out local retail/is also bad for society, though not on Meta’s scale. But you sell your soul more cheaply there.

[vanuatu]

not to defend zuck but its a common misconception that meta sells data

advertisers dont see the personal data they buy for ad placement

[jbuhbjlnjbn]

There is no misconception. Meta also sells data, next to selling advertising space.

[seattle_spring]

They literally don't. Data is their moat; selling it would be counter to their financial success.

[jbuhbjlnjbn]

Well not in bulk to its advertisement competitors as you seem to suggest. But as a different revenue stream, data collectors sell the collected information. Don't be naive, of course they do, first customer are governments.

[spongebobstoes]

no, it doesn't sell user data. or, where can I buy some?

[doublerabbit]

Brokers. Acxiom and Experian for starters.

Heck, you can buy facebook datasets right now from brightdata.

https://brightdata.com/products/datasets/facebook

Don't you recall the Cambridge Analytica scandal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

All corporates sell your data. You're a fool to think otherwise, data makes dosh, and you can sell any data for a price.

Data is a commodity.

There are current ten plus folk in the subway carriage I am sitting in right now. Toss me £10 and I'll give you a dataset of ten people of what colour tops they're wearing and what brand of shoe and colour.

And yes you can sell your internet data too.

https://www.moneymagpie.com/make-money/make-money-selling-yo...

[spongebobstoes]

this is just not correct.

the brightdata link is a data set scraped from Facebook, not sold by Facebook

Cambridge Analytica was the same thing, scraped from Facebook by people who voluntarily (perhaps ignorantly) gave their data to quiz apps like "what kind of horse are you?"

Facebook does not sell user data, and it never has

[dbgrman]

its not a misconception. As an advertiser, I can go use meta's tools, target people specifically, and show them ads on meta's platform. While i don't get the CSV dump, but if i can target people with my message, its the same thing. Meta keeps the data AND the distribution. Data brokers have the data but no distribution of attention for that data. Newspapers have distribution but don't have the granualar data for direct targeting.

There are many, many use cases of having a CSV dump of the data, but in reality, all of it boils down to either reselling the data, or marketing a product to the demographic in the data.

The 3rd use case is that of palantir but let's not get distracted.

So, meta is not selling data is like saying netflix is not selling movies (its actually buying them). Technically true, but a shallow understanding.

[vanuatu]

i dont think targeted ads are necessarily bad, and definitely not has bad as the data freely shared vs. behind meta's walls

and what is this 3rd use case?

[mrguyorama]

Why should anyone at all care about this distinction?

[vanuatu]

i care that my data isnt being sold

i dont really care that i get targeted ads, in fact i prefer targeted ads vs. ones that are of no use to me

[adammarples]

Really do you care that your daughters are being advertised beauty products at the exact moment that they delete a photo because it's likely that they're feeling low self esteem at that moment? Because that's a service that you used to be able to buy from Meta.

[vanuatu]

i think some targeted ads are bad

and social media is probably bad

[gobdovan]

Why wouldn't Meta also directly sell data if nobody cared about this distinction?

[mcdeltat]

I have learnt that very few in tech hold themselves to a complex moral standard. Most seem to have an attitude like "well company X is offering money, why not take it?" Some seem to genuinely believe large money = large societal value no matter what the job is. Quite blasé and pretty sad.

[jkl5xx]

This is a pretty uncharitable perspective. Most folks I know working at Meta or Amazon aren’t morally bankrupt. They just have kids, debt, poor parents with health problems, etc. They work at Meta to support their loved ones. And it’s not like you can walk onto the street and just wave down a morally superior job with similar pay and benefits. Blame the tech oligarchs, not the workers.

[gaiagraphia]

"Supporting their loved ones" is doing a lot of moral heavy lifting here, though.

History's littered with people trotting out this line when they've valued luxury and status over morals.

The more you interact with something, the more you are part of it and help it prosper. "Blame the kings!" is a little bit too simple, imo.

[jkl5xx]

Thanks for the level-headed response. Agreed, "blame the kings" is also an overly simplistic take. There's rarely a single entity to blame. Just wanted to bring some nuance to the hate getting thrown around here.

Redirecting frustration towards the systemic issues that drive perfectly normal people to work for a terrible company like Meta seems more productive to me.

I hate what Meta does just as much as the next guy, but shaming friends who feel like they have no better employment option doesn't seem like the best way to make a difference here.

[Jtarii]

When you are paid $500,000+ a year you lose the right to use the "I'm just supporting my family" excuse.

You sold your morals for a wheelbarrow of money, that is the end of the story.

[gaiagraphia]

People struggle with claiming responsibility for their actions.

They think a 6 digit salary is a god-given right, and that everybody else is to blame if their work results in negative externalities for the rest of society/the world.

It's quite ok to say "I chose the money and don't value x". I'd prefer the honesty, rather than people larping as moral crusaders and throwing blame around.

[adammarples]

If morality is only a consideration after similar pay and benefits are secured, then it's not really a high enough consideration to call the person moral

[p-e-w]

There are many, many tech jobs at many companies (at least there used to be, until very recently).

“I work for one of the most evil institutions on the planet today because it is the only way I can support my sick parents” is an absurd excuse.

[Trasmatta]

It's not actually that hard, most companies are morally superior to Meta. Even the other evil ones.

[yoyohello13]

Lol, it's always. Oh, think of these poor software engineers making $400,000 a year. Just scraping by to support their family. Give me a break.

When you're pulling that kind of money, there is a choice.

[jmye]

Reads like "The poor kapos had kids! They weren't evil, they were just upstanding people supporting their families!"

Absolute bullshit.

> And it’s not like you can walk onto the street and just wave down a morally superior job with similar pay

Oh no! They might only have to make mid-six figures! Welp, better give some teenage girls depression. They really don't have a choice, do they?

Zero good people work at Meta.