[jmduke]

When you work for someone, their reputation does, absolutely, 100% reflect on you personally regardless of what your role in the company is (to some degree, obviously).

I don't understand this rationale at all. You are not your company. Calling someone evil because you dislike their company (I'm not defending Zynga, but they're the #firstworldproblems of "evil") is incredibly sophomoric.

[jlgreco]

You've basically got a very mild variation on the Wernher Von Braun thing going on here.

Engineer of prolific impact and talent, working for the worst possible people, indirectly exploiting people in the worse possible way to do shit work that is related to his pure and commendable goals and interests. The engineer feels as though he is powerless to resist the the exploitation that is demanded by his employer. Eventually the bad guy employers go down in flames to everyone's delight, but the engineer still has the technical chops to make himself valued.

The question, does the previous employer reflect poorly on the engineer?

To be honest, Von Braun is one of those ambiguous figures in history for me. I don't really know how I feel about him. However, the fact that he is ambiguous at all means that I have to admit to myself that his affiliations during the war do tarnish what I think of him. I don't think it is possible for that not to be the case.

Ex-Zynga software engineer? Obviously the ambiguity is not going to be "is this guy a war criminal or not?" But would there be any ambiguity of any sort? Yeah, I think for me there would be.

I don't think an engineer of any caliber is evaluated in a vacuum, past employers shape how we view them, for better or worse. This (particularly how I feel about Von Braun) is something I have thought about hard in the past when considering what I want to do as an engineer.

[ryguytilidie]

I know Mark Pincus is a pretty big dick, but "worst possible people"? Come on.

[jlgreco]

> very mild variation

In case your browser isn't showing it (android chrome?), there is some italicized emphasis there.

[dotBen]

com·pa·ny noun:

a : association with another

b : companions, associates

c : a group of persons or things

d : a chartered commercial organization or medieval trade guild

e : an association of persons for carrying on a commercial or industrial enterprise

You are your company. That's the very definition of the word. One might be given a dispensation to the evil-by-association if you were working at Burger King because that's the only job you could get.

But you're presumably an incredibly smart and capable (and thus sought after) tech professional who could no doubt have placed his labor wherever he chose.

[nileshtrivedi]

To be honest, "company" is an association of shareholders. I don't think this definition covers or should cover employees.

Agree with your overall point though.

[jlgreco]

If you are the company, but the company is not you (assuming other employees and shareholders), but the company is a person itself, does this mean that you and the company are conjoined siblings?

[sergiosgc]

I totally understand. Most major "evils" happen through a combination of very small steps towards the cliff. It takes a very vigilant stance, permeated through the company structure to prevent this fall into the abyss. In this light, constantly questioning the ethics of your employer company, as a whole, is healthy.

[shadowmint]

Perhaps. ...but I think you're fooling yourself if you think this doesn't happen in the real world.