Like FB or not (I don't), it provides a lot of value to a lot of people. While it might not promote the ideals some of us "hacker" types have, on the whole, it is not flat-out evil like, say, some of those toolbar companies or botnet groups.
Additionally, apart from writing in PHP, there must be tons of technical fun and deep problems to solve that makes FB fairly unique.
And also, I'm not really sure how unethical it'd be to work for them, even if you felt they were wrong. Unless you're bringing some rare 4-sigma value to FB, it's likely they'd just get someone else. Might as well be you, where you have a chance to influence things.
In addition to that, they do some good for the larger community, such as starting the Open Compute Project (http://www.opencompute.org/). That effort is what has me considering Facebook as a next career step (I would love to work on that stuff).
Now, this is not an attempt to defend Facebook's actions here or in their other recent efforts. I am merely providing another point of evidence to support MichaelGG's point that Facebook is not flat-out evil, and provide a reason someone might want to work for them despite their recent behavior.
Yes, I know all of that but weighed against the new social graph search and (what appears to me) to be a disingenuous and constantly shifting privacy policy, it isn't much.
I still remember SPYW, when sharing across Google services got overblown. It is nothing compared to Facebook automatically making your data public that wasn't public before.
I don't know about them, but I know someone from a different company who has it all figured out. Every time their company does something nasty, they just donate to the EFF.
It seems like a legitimate way to reconcile one's conscience with the realpolitik of modern IT employment, engaged as we are in building the surveillance state/police state/nanny state we were all warned about by 20th century novelists and historians.
I try to do this when I buy an RIAA-published album or watch a Hollywood film. I make sure I donate an equivalent amount to civil-liberties orgs (EFF, ALA, and others) during that year.
Kinda funny, when I inadvertently buy a TV show or movie that features global warming propaganda, I donate the same amount of money to Climate Audit or Bishop Hill.
I have to admit it is quite astonishing to see someone denying climate change is a huge issue on a site dedicated to computer-logic based businesses that are future-focused, a site populated by many under 30.
Climate change is the primary challenge for the next few generations, and once we move on from 'debate' we see that there are a wealth of opportunities in mitigation, reduction of CO2 output and coping with the impact. Just ask Elon Musk.
I emphatically disagree with the "overwhelming judgement of science" when it comes to this issue. And I'm thoroughly disgusted by the profiteering that accompanies the global warming campaign. Let's see who is in denial 20 years from now.
Which of these scenarios do you think is more likely?
That a group of nonprofits and academic institutions all colluded over a decade or three to make money in a very roundabout way for groups they don't have any direct involvement with?
-or-
That a group of oil industry types, in a nod to the junk science used by big tobacco for years, colluded over a decade or three in an attempt to discredit something that will directly impact their bottom lines in a bad way?
Permalink for Great Justice? Here's a graph from 1970 (rather than 1990), using a more up to date version of the database you referred to...
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to
Notice the upward trend?
Let's go back even further, to 1900...
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to
The upward trend in temperature is clear, the question then becomes why it is happening. What is your theory on this?
There is a wide gulf between "thinking that there is no climate change" and agreeing with the politicization of the issue at every opportunity by authors, actors, and journalists who often are not particularly well-informed on the subject.
Your comment's actually a pretty good illustration of the effect the grandparent is (probably) talking about.
The first episode of The Walking Dead comes to mind. I'd also volunteer Waterworld and The Day After Tomorrow, but those are a bit too obvious and not worth the money.
Considering that the movement of money is all that ever changes anything in today's world, I don't think that's a bad idea. I'd listen to their pitch, put it that way.
It sounds like you need to take a moment to consciously reflect on the fact that not everyone cares about privacy to the same extent you do. I don't just mean the privacy of others, but their own privacy as well. To many people, the loss of privacy that comes from being searchable is more than offset by the value they get out of Facebook.
I've never bought the excuse about "needing to pay the bills". If you are wiling to compromise your convictions for money, how strong are those convictions in the first place.
It reminds me of a friend of mine whose wife works for the TSA at the airport. Honestly, I have zero respect for her, but hey, at least she can pay her mortgage right?
While Facebook isn't on the same level as working for the TSA, it is definitely a company that appears to be run by people of questionable moral character, and I would absolutely not want to be associated with them.
People can have different opinions about the ethical implications of their job. Even if you think organization X is doing some wrong things, do you try to change it from without, or from within? I think that's each person's individual decision to make. Rather than second-guess their choice, why not focus on what their company or organization is doing wrong or could do better?
1st ¶: surely you've never been in the situation where you didn't have a parent to pay your rent or daily needed meals. Prove than and then you'll have the right to question how others make their money,
2nd ¶: your friend loves her, and she helps him to lift the weight. Who are you to question that?
3rd ¶: thank god your parents are such great persons.
I currently deliver pizza for a living. There have been times in my past when I ate a dollar menu burger from McDonald's once every couple of days. I am well aware of what poverty is.
That's irrelevant though. Is morality relative to your current financial situation? Is it ok to do wrong in order to make money?
There are plenty of jobs available. People just want to be picky about what jobs they take. If a person justifies a salary because other jobs are "beneath them" or they don't provide the standard of living they desire, that person has compromised themselves.
I have done many things in my past of which I am not proud, but I try every day to keep that list from getting longer. The only way the world will improve is if we all become more conscious of our actions and their consequences. Any other course is selfishness.
Additionally, apart from writing in PHP, there must be tons of technical fun and deep problems to solve that makes FB fairly unique.
And also, I'm not really sure how unethical it'd be to work for them, even if you felt they were wrong. Unless you're bringing some rare 4-sigma value to FB, it's likely they'd just get someone else. Might as well be you, where you have a chance to influence things.