[jjulius]

The number of people in these comments who would be happy to be "paid well" to contribute to what's inarguably a huge net negative worldwide is exactly how the company got to this point.

It's astonishing how many people value a ton of money over doing something good. Everyone who talks about setting values aside for cash is the problem. Gross.

[LucidLynx]

I am very very sad reading that, indeed.

It is absolutely not what I think about "job" and "contributing to society": I would prefer to be paid less but work in an ethical company than the other people of this thread...

This is maybe why I am feeling so "disconnected" with Tech and devs today.

[siren2026]

One of my good friend "Metamate" argument is that "if he doesn't do it, another engineer will do it. Might as well take the money".

But at least they all seem to acknowledge it is a terrible company and they know they are working on something terrible (which is beyond me why you would accept to do that).

[cvoss]

Your friend's argument holds no water. None at all. That's not how morality and ethics work.

[doublerabbit]

It doesn't matter, money is money. Without it your pretty much screwed in this world.

[jjulius]

Of which Meta is but one source of, among a sea of countless other places to obtain it.

[doublerabbit]

When was the last time you applied for a job and got an interview?

I was on a salary of $550 a day with a bank. I left because how grim banks are. I have yet to find another job that pays that much outside of a banking circuit.

If meta is paying you high-end why would you give it up for something that pays you less?

[jjulius]

>If meta is paying you high-end why would you give it up for something that pays you less?

Sure, because I don't value high-end living. A modest living is enough to keep me happy. If I can provide a happy, comfortable life for my family, we're good.

It would irk me deeply to set aside my values for the sake of a boatload of cash that I don't actually need.

[henry2023]

Because principles are more important than a paycheck.

[soundworlds]

This is the same argument I hear about too-fast AI rollouts. "If we don't adopt AI, then we will lose to the business that does."

It is so obvious how competition dynamics naturally ends up as a fight to the bottom, and yet so many people are happy enough clocking in to this grind, then trying to forget about it the moment they clock off.

I totally understand this from a survival standpoint - but choosing to work at Meta is likely not "the only job you could get"

[wayeq]

> "if he doesn't do it, another engineer will do it. Might as well take the money".

You should introduce your friend to Kant. He’s taken a situational excuse and turned it into a general principle: ‘If someone else would do it anyway, it’s okay for me to do it.’

It's kinda like.. Kant's whole 'thing'.

[11101010010001]

There isn't a giant leap between the workers and the users. Stop using meta products period.

[yubblegum]

I have a dear friend who works at Meta. The conclusion that all meta workers are valuing money over "something good" is not reasonable. This fellow, who I know to be a good man of excellent character btw, for example has to support his family (which all together number 6), and be prepared to pay tuition for 4 kids starting in a decade and then one after another for the other 3! Is providing for your family and their future not "something good"?

> The number of people in these comments who would be happy to be "paid well" to contribute to what's inarguably a huge net negative worldwide is exactly how the company got to this point.

Sorry, have to call bullshit on this. As to the Meta products, who is forcing anyone to use it? They could have had armies of geeks working for them but if no one ever came, would Facebook cum Meta ever be this huge? I personally, from back when most people here would downvote you to oblivion when some of us pointed out the emergence of surveillance capitalism in "Web 2.0", recognized this company for what it is and have avoided every single product offering.

Who is forcing people to use Facebook?

And what was the role of websites like Hackernews in promoting the 'permissive' (irony alert) ethics of these 'ventures'?

[jjulius]

There are many, many ways to provide for one's family, Meta is but one. And I say this as a father providing for mine.

Additionally, putting the blame for using Meta products on the users in spite of all of what we know about how the company has strived to make the productive terribly addictive is a very wild take.

[bloggie]

After many years in research science I had an opportunity to work in applied sciences in the petroleum industry. This is an industry that knows that the writing is on the wall for them. Resources are finite and peak demand may well be behind us. (Almost everyone I worked with drove electric cars.) That does not stop the petroleum industry (drug dealers) from responding to economic demand (addicts). When I was younger I saw the petroleum industry as evil, but if there was no demand there would be no supply. Who is to blame? Working in this industry changed my perspective on addiction, drinking, gambling, infinite scrolling. I used to believe that the pushers were solely at fault, and some of them certainly are. But I find it hard to blame only Facebook for their practices.

[jjulius]

When the entire world has been built around requiring you to use petroleum to go places and build certain things, and requires you to use certain software to interact with everyone, I have sympathy for users whose hands are often tied from the get-go. I can't blame them when "the system" (a reductive phrase, but it works for this response) is setup as such.

That there's demand isn't necessarily the fault of the user, in many cases it's the fault of industry. At this point, at least for petroleum, it's a feedback loop - we built infrastructure around it, people became dependent upon it because alternatives are limited, the dependence creates demand, and that demand is used to justify continued production.

The petroluem industry then just has to work hard to squash alternatives, as it very much has, thereby leaving the user with little to no choice.

[yoyohello13]

> Working in this industry changed my perspective on addiction, drinking, gambling, infinite scrolling. I used to believe that the pushers were solely at fault, and some of them certainly are. But I find it hard to blame only Facebook for their practices.

So you changed your beliefs to ease some cognitive dissonance and help yourself sleep at night. Seems normal and expected to me, people do that all the time. These companies actively advertise and lobby to get their product into more peoples hands and quash alternatives.

[yubblegum]

Well, this fellow is a programmer, that's his trade and at his level he would be working for one of the fangs or whatever they are called these days and they're all creepy as far I am concerned. Which one of them is 'responsible'? Google and its pervasive tracking and selling of our data to all and sundry? Microsoft and "let's make our AI addictive"? Working for Amazon and contributing to the gutting of small businesses and bookstores? ... Really, you speak as if you have slept through the past 26 years in this field.

> Additionally, putting the blame for using Meta products on the users in spite of all of what we know about how the company has strived to make the productive terribly addictive is a very wild take.

Really? It's like me complaining that my pot and smoking habits were due to evil designs of their vendors. I take full responsibility for taking those initial puffs knowing full well that they were addictive and not good for me.

p.s. my general point is this: The entire industry was pushing developers to think nothing of 'ethical concerns' and 'just move fast and break things'.

And I find it disengenous to now pick on a single solitary entity, Meta, as if the rest of these newly arrived big techs were/are clean and ethical. Possibly some want to virtue signal while earning big $ at some other VC unicorn.

(Anyone working for "AI" companies here complaining about Meta? ...)

[jjulius]

>And I find it disengenous to now pick on a single solitary entity, Meta, as if the rest of these newly arrived big techs were/are clean and ethical. Possibly some want to virtue signal while earning big $ at some other VC unicorn.

This particular discussion is about Meta, hence the focus in these comments. My views (and I'm sure the views of many others here) do, however, apply broadly to much of what you refer to.

That comment about me sleeping through the past 26 years? I'd say the same about all of the companies you cited, they've all had their own broad negative impacts.

Edit: Further, the marijuana comparison is a bit weak (as an aside, I'm a former pothead myself, who made the choice to start and stop). The world hasn't structured itself to the point where most people are required to smoke pot to do everything they need to do. The world has structured itself to require Meta products be used in many instances, lest you lose access to information from certain sources or the ability to communicate with others. "The system" pushes people to it, and it tries it's damndest to keep you there once you arrive.

[qweiopqweiop]

I agree other comapnies are just as culpable as Meta, but you think it's childrens fault they get addicted?

We barely know the damage social media does yet, it's not comparable to taking the first hit of drugs at all.

Agreed that tech workers need to take a look at themselves too, but also it's the execs and governments more too blame.

[yubblegum]

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Children are on Facebook because adults like you used their surveillance product and made them a "must have" aspect of social life.

Facebook and Google and the rest were harming society long before '20s. This was obvious to some us and when we spoke up forums like this were used to silence informed voices.

That is the .

[jjulius]

What about the less-tech-literate-than-us adult who tried their best to lock down the phone they gave their teen for "emergencies only", but the teen ended up hopping on social media anyway because of FOMO from their friends who were already there?

The kids feel the pressure from their own social circles, I can see it even with my littles and their requests for tablets and Minecraft at their young ages. And if they choose to give into that pressure in spite of their parent's best efforts, much of what they might use is designed to keep them there.

I made a comment about the petroleum industry's feedback loop making it hard for me to fully fault petroleum users for continuing to drive demand for oil in another comment in this chain. Like it or not, our society has become so structured around social media that we're already seeing something similar play out there. That feedback loop is driven by the companies at fault here.

[rafterydj]

If you are trying to say that it's not just Meta but all tech giants, you have an oddly defensive way to make that point.

Just because the entire industry was doing bad things does not absolve the largest members of the industry from doing bad things. They were leading the charge!

[jmye]

> Is providing for your family and their future not "something good"?

No, intentionally giving kids depression and anger issues is not "something good" no matter how many bullshit platitudes someone throws out about their "family" and "excellent character".

[burner000333]

> Who is forcing people to use Facebook?

Pixels? Everywhere? Pre-installed FB mobile apps that harvest contact info and build shadow profiles of non-FB users?

Doesn't seem like serious analysis. Raising a family is important, but so is how you fund it, right? Still ok to fund it if you're robbing banks, but it pays for college? That is your logic it seems.

[rafterydj]

Facebook is forcing people to use Facebook. If there were realistic alternative social network systems that allowed account migration with contacts and messages, Facebook would be dead in the water.

You can't seriously argue that everyone can just drop a mainstream communication tool without acknowledging the lack of replacements.

[yoyohello13]

Come on now. You make it sound like this guy is “just scraping but trying to provide for his kids.” You don’t need an obscene salary to do that.

[Trasmatta]

There are no other companies that would pay your friend?

[unethical_ban]

The solution is for a country to have decent baseline social services. The idea of hoarding money to ensure you don't die on the street or working a menial job at age 75 would diminish somewhat.

[Computer0]

The comp-sci crowd has disgusted me since about when I graduated college. I do feel a certain sick sense of glee when these people who gloated they don't need worker protections and unions suddenly are left out in the cold. I hope the industry comes around, and stops acting 'better than' everyone who doesn't make 6 figures and get free catered lunch everyday.

[jojobas]

Well now it's money for doing something bad AND getting fucked, so something may change.

[AndrewKemendo]

I used to think there was a solution to this but theres not:

There is no limit to human greed