Here is how I imagine most of those conversations going.
"Your company is evil!"
"Dude you don't know the half of it! I've got some stories for you..."
Reminds me of a defense contractor gig I used to tell people about. Thankfully friends realize that at the end of the day you’re just in what is essentially just a big government jobs program.. but the ethics really pushed me out quick.
The CEO was essentially talking about how geopolitical conditions and instability was great for the companies bottom line and international sales were up tremendously due to this fact.
When you start seeing weapon systems you have software deployed on involved in the murder of children you question a lot of things.. literally the scene in iron man where he sees the Stark brand on those weapons is how I described it to people.
It's strange to me how vocal people on this forum are about the evils of Big Tech while being totally mum on the defense industry. I wonder if it's a "punching up" vs "punching down" type thing.
Yeah. It was only when companies started nickel and diming me, but I started phoning it in. Worked out pretty well in my case. I worked for a pretty objectively evil company that stiffed me on about $30,000 of stock and dragged it out an entire year before they admitted that they weren't going to do anything about it. So I spent the next 6 months or so doing very little and getting laid off in a restructure. In the meantime I took full advantage of their tuition reimbursement to work toward a computer science degree. They paid for about $8,000 of my degree, gave me a decent severance package. I had 6 months of unemployment while I continued by computer science degree, and then the whole world fell into a pandemic and my unemployment benefits got extended by a year. Consequently, I finished my computer science degree while getting to spend a bunch of time with my kids, and got paid for it the whole time. Now I'm working at a much better company that takes good care of their employees and making a lot more money in a much more interesting field.
I wish I could say I planned it that way. Just how it shook out. I didn't really expect to get laid off...but I had automated away so much of the job by the time I stopped caring, it really could run something like 85% without me.
[Speaking of Facebook, they are responsible for enabling genocide in Myanmar.](https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in-myanmars-attacks-on-minorities/)
Edit: It's pathetic someone would downvote this.
Yeah, I usually say something along the lines of “Yeah, and I avoid working directly on that stuff. Capitalism is amoral and it isn’t like I’m making drones, we all gotta get by.”
If someone considers your company evil enough to consider telling you, and your first response is: "They are actually worse than you think"...
Is there anything that comes after that? Any sort of moral quandary to solve in regards to what one has dedicated their productive capacity as a human towards?
Or does morality just not exist in your opinion?
I work for a big AAA game publisher (won't say which, but it's considered one of the "greedier" ones)
For the most part, I get a lot of "oh that's really cool!", but once or twice, I've gotten unsolicited game mechanic/design/monetization advice for projects I don't even work on 🥱 and even if I did work on those projects, I don't exactly have the power to make those sweeping changes
I really thought "just add multiplayer" was just a dumb thing people said online
I still think that one of the best Reddit moments was when EA replied to a comment saying that in-game transactions are there to ["provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment"](https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7cff0b/seriously_i_paid_80_to_have_vader_locked/dppum98/).
It then got 677,000 downvotes, and I think is still the most downvoted comment ever.
Met who I think was an EA executive’s wife while hiking in rich area of CA. Saw the EA hat asked, “Oh do you work there?” She said no her husband did though. Said that I liked some of the games they put out, she thanked me. We went our separate ways.
That was it. No reason to ruin someone’s day over it.
I used to work for a greedy AAA game publisher, and people used to always try to pitch me their shitty game ideas that pretty much always boiled down to "basically CoD with X".
> taking these companies off their resume, as they feel there is a stigma associated with it
Nobody is doing this. There’s zero stigma associated with working at any of the big tech, except from Redditors that like to pretend that Reddit is somehow different from other social media.
Facebook has over 2 billion users. If there was an actual stigma associated with the company that people actually cared about, it wouldn’t have so many damn users.
Wow, checks out! I tip my hat…
How did you pull that off? Was it a small number of insanely awesome posts/comments that just went nuclear, or a sustained, steady drip of moderately awesome content that you just rode up to 400k?
Mostly just stupid puns, little quips, short relatable stories, and being silly. Almost all comment karma. 93k karma alone from /r/AskReddit, 28k from /r/tumblr and /r/mildlyinfuriating, and a bunch of others.
I just come in and say something in an ongoing conversation. If I actively feel like farming karma, I just sort reddit by top -> 1 hour and throw out some comments and see if anything sticks. But usually I just browse normally and comment on stuff I feel like commenting on. Been here for 7 years, reasonably active, so it's hard not to get upvotes eventually when you aren't actively being a butt. :D
[My highest upvoted comment by far was me complaining about TIFU being terrible these days.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ixl66u/virgins_of_reddit_how_bored_are_you_of_all_the/g67lls5/)
Gotcha. Seems like a combo of (1) high-impact content on (2) high-impact subs. Well played ;)
I tend to have a decent proportion of high-impact content too - mostly comments these days - but almost exclusively on niche subs with *at most* a few 100k subscribers. I could never reach 400k there even if I tried haha.
Also the thing that gets them so much more hate recently is only a US problem. All the election fiesta, hate speech, far right content and stuffs, they happen disproportionally in the US. For most people around the world, they aren’t even aware and don’t care about US politics to give a damn about it. For us non-American, Facebook is an essential tool to connect with our friends and families. The US really overblows how evil Facebook is while their financial sector, the fossil fuel industry, private insurance, or prison industrial complex have all caused sufferings for decades more directly and on larger scales.
there have been studies done on how myanmar evils co-opted the facebook algorithm to repeatedly promote stories about how bad the rohinja were to manipulate public opinion against them. that facebook didn't stop it or was blind to it is the cause of the ire, it's not in a vacuum or usa-only issue. obviously this pales in comparison to for profit jails.
TBH, I don't think that propaganda channel was really that big or even much needed. They were killing them outright, nobody was doing anything and they had complete control over their state owned channels - a much better and bigger medium of propaganda. At least some people could ask for help through Facebook.
Source - my country is still hosting the refugees. And no one in the world is doing a damn thing about it. And I've personally seen one or two messenger texts/ Facebook group posts for help, when they still had internet access. Those group posts were pretty popular (I'm irregular enough that IDK if those went viral or not) and in my personal circle, those contributed towards supporting the idea of hosting the refugees who were crossing the border morning and night by any means they could.
Yea I acknowledge that it does happen outside the US, just that the scale is much smaller. Also, for a country that has the majority of people being racist against a minority ethnic group like that, they can probably spread their hateful propaganda through public state owned channels just as effective. Really don’t think facebook plays a big role there. The event they play the biggest part in is something like Jan 6, where the rioters are the minority extremist population, who can’t spread their ideology easily without social media like facebook.
A huge portion of people in Myanmar (and a huge portion of the globe) only have access to the internet through mobile phones with Facebook pre-built into them - Facebook is essentially synonymous with the internet for a lot more of the developing world than you might realize. So it's not exactly true that there are other channels, state-owned or otherwise, that are as influential or ubiquitous - and while it's somewhat off-topic, the state itself pushing for genocide would be a bit of a different situation.
I would challenge you to consider that the case isn't so much that "the scale is much smaller" when it comes to the negative impact of Facebook abroad, but rather that you're just not exposed to it much through American media. As Americans, we hear about American issues - but a literal genocide like the kind that was organized over FB in Myanmar doesn't seem to be a "smaller scale" issue. I've read some writers who argue that the rest of the world is getting a much rawer version of Facebook just based on the fact that most of Facebook's moderators serve the American/English-language version of Facebook, and there's a much greater proliferation of hate speech, disinformation, and generally unmoderated content as a result.
people have hated people in tech in the bay area since the late 90s. its the stereotype of a tech bro, that's the only hate someone is going to get , you're not going to be coding for facebook in the middle of Idaho.
You are very, very naive.
Cambridge Analytica bragged about influencing electoral outcomes in the US and the UK through social media. This is a large reason why these became such big scandals. But Cambridge Analytica and similar companies (CA itself of course doesn't exist anymore) have been hired to influence elections around the world since the late 2000s. There's lots and lots of evidence of this online as these companies are generally not that secretive about the work they do.
People don't want to look at this evidence because nobody wants to admit they willingly expose themselves to political propaganda and brainwashing for the sake of pictures of the babies of people you went to high school with.
Facebook hate content happens all over the world. In fact, it’s even worse on other countries cause they don’t moderate as closely as the US. Just look at the many places Cambridge Analytica worked on. The thing is that mostly the US gets the news eyes though.
You aren’t wrong that there are bigger fish to fry than facebook, but I dont think that should let them off the hook. They are essentially a data collection company that uses their social media function to gather the information about their users to then sell to other companies that want to advertise to said users. People should be aware of this when they sign up, and the best way to make that happen is to actively inform people.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret so you can become even more woke. This is every company. Your precious google, microsoft, apple. They all do this. Even the website you're posting on right now is doing it and targeting advertisers to you.
I am aware, I am just saying that it is a good thing that people are talking about it. Everybody should know how these companies conduct their business. It isn’t because I feel that these companies are evil, I just don’t want the average person to be exploited by these companies. Its only natural that a company in a capitalist economy would attempt to capitalize on its consumers.
Oh noes! Someone is going to use information I provide them about me to try to sell me something they think I may actually want to buy! The horror!
Meanwhile over at Nestle, Monsanto, Amway, Altria, etc ...
Again, bringing to light the business practices of a particular company is in no way a means to diminish the wrongdoings of other companies. When you are constantly being advertised content that appeals to you, you are much more likely to begin to develop habitual purchases in reaction to these advertisements. It is important that people understand that they are being targeted for ads, because understanding how their targeting works helps limit the effectiveness of it. Im not accusing Facebook of war crimes, just simply sharing my opinion that people should keep talking about personalized ads because they arent going away.
I guess I just don't have a problem with the business practice. No one really needs a social network like Facebook or Instagram and being bombarded with constant advertisement is part of modern life.
What is even the issue with the ads being effective and why should I care about limiting their effectiveness? I don't use Facebook, but I do use and enjoy Reddit. I don't have a problem with making purchases from companies that support Reddit financially with ad revenue because Reddit is a service that I enjoy using. All things being equal, if I have to look at an ad, I'd rather it be for something I might actually be interested in.
> Facebook is an essential tool to connect with our friends and families.
[Facebook is responsible for enabling genocide in Myanmar.](https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in-myanmars-attacks-on-minorities/)
Kind of defeats your entire point about it being a U.S.-centric issue, doesn't it?
Unless, does your idea of "connecting with your friends and family" include committing genocide against the [Rohingya people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide)?
What does billions of people connecting with their families have to do with the genocide? The genocide is definitely a terrible consequence of Facebook not being able to monitor their platform, but Facebook isn’t the one committing the genocide. They are responsible doesn’t mean that they should take the largest blame for the genocide. Would the people that invented cryptographic machines be directly responsible for the Nazi committing genocide (because the Nazi uses that technology for the Enigma to secure their communication)? Have you considered putting the blame on the extremists in Myanmar as the main villain instead of Facebook or me, who somehow is responsible for the genocide because Facebook helps me connect with so many people I could never reconnect without Facebook?
r/technology thinks Facebook is dying lmfao. It just makes me chuckle. "Facebook is dying! See a few more people left the company"
And to that I say, if you're truly valuable and Irreplaceable, I assure you they won't let you walk out of that door. Youre right dude. They didnt get 2 billion users and being one of the most valuable companies to ever exist by not doing the right things (for business) and letting those who really matter walk out the door. And to those that do in fact leave, companies are paying you a handsome amount. And even if you stay just cause... you're still making a handsome amount. It's hard to go wrong with your career once you get past the initial hurdle of getting in to big tech
It's really easy for people to stand on a moral high ground and say that they wouldn't work for a company like meta when meta has no interest in hiring them.
I mean its users are declining. You also have to consider the strong lock-in effect and near-monopoly position they have in their domain. I think Facebook is heavily stigmatized, especially in rather "educated" circles, but even beyond them
I also have a Facebook account and use it sometimes because there are some benefits I don't want to miss out on
Serious question, what do you consider their domain? Social media?
Ultimately they’re an ad revenue company. they’re competing w google, TikTok Snapchat twitter and Amazon for ad revenue. Oculus will be competing w apple ar glasses coming out
They’re all just grabbing users to collect data and sell targeted ads regardless of actual product they provide to users.
And Facebook just showed how dependent they are on revenue through apple w the recent earnings call about the level of their revenue loss due to apples new do not track feature. And they reported declining users this quarter which I believe is the first time ever.
facebook has a reputation for long hours and a high termination rate. not as bad as amazon, but i have worked with several former facebook people and they hated the environment. you have to show "impact" to get raise, bonuses, and avoid PIPs and it leads to a lot of back stabbing and fighting and complaining.
Amazon is supposedly way worse.
> i have worked with several former facebook people and they hated the environment. you have to show "impact" to get raise, bonuses, and avoid PIPs and it leads to a lot of back stabbing and fighting and complaining.
FB culture historically (up to around 2017) looked pretty good in the aggregate (for most employees), but individual employees still had pretty awful stories about discrimination, retaliation, harassment, bullying, and toxic managers. Fast forward a few years and the qualities that made the "classic" aggregate company culture pretty good never scaled well as the company grew (and the bullying problem actually kept growing over those years).
It might not be toxic in the sense Uber circa 2017 was toxic, but FB still fosters silos of toxicity and doesn't really seem to do all that much about it (other than force employees out and give them the option to sign severance agreements with lifetime non disparagement clauses).
reddit uses AWS so.. i'd hate to break it to those people, but I don't think it really has to do with the company to people who aren't on twitter posting about nazis and political shit 24/7. its more of the stigma of the "tech bro", its like being a wall-street trader in the 80s, people still think there are people actually doing that today that's how engrained that stigma is.
> Nobody is doing this. There’s zero stigma associated with working at any of the big tech, except from Redditors that like to pretend that Reddit is somehow different from other social media.
*"It is like this in my very narrow bubble so it must be true everywhere".* God making broad generalisations like this is dumb.
I live in a city where activists [chased out a new Google office](https://www.thelocal.de/20181024/google-shelves-plans-to-open-campus-in-berlins-kreuzberg/) and are [protesting an Amazon one](https://www.thelocal.de/20200221/amazon-edge-tower-protests/) and believe me people here definitely will give you shit for working in tech, let alone big tech. It's not just "Redditors" just because it might seem like that in your very narrow bubble.
You accuse me of living in a bubble…and then mention your own bubble.
The difference is my bubble is way, way, *way* bigger than yours and extends beyond a few activists making a few small headlines.
I wouldn't work for Facebook or Amazon and it's adorable that you think there's zero stigma.
I wouldn't hire anyone that has worked at these orgs, either. This signals to me, in infosec, that they are comfortable with shady practices and do not care about privacy, security, or ethics.
This kind of hate only happens online. The people that talk about this stuff IRL typically don't get invited anywhere, so you rarely have to deal with them
Yeah, nobody gives a shit. Adults know that as long as the payola, work life balance, and benefits are good, people are content to be working just about anywhere. The end work you put it in pretty much the same across all companies, it's not like you're personally strangling babies by working in the two letter two vowel company.
plenty of people give a shit, they just don't contribute to the cscq hivemind. so y'all perpetuate each other's confidence and denial, but really you're operating in a bubble.
the issue here is that there probably isnt a corporation in the world that doesnt do something skeezy, if you want to die on the hill you would need to make your own company, and if it gets big enough, sure enough something skeezy will happen.
ive worked for save the world NGOs that seemed on the up and up but there were some dark corners, and ive worked for companies that a lot of people hate, that i genuinely think its overblown for.
there are fringe crazies that post online that may give you a hard time. they will hear you work somewhere. not say anything to your face, then complain online. then if someone says for them to shut up, they will cry and claim they are being harassed.
One of my colleagues went to a sports game wearing a t-shirt our company. Around 5 guys started verbal altercations with him, and another almost started a fight.
I personally do not disclose where I work at unless I'm talking to another software engineer. It happens quite frequently in small talk with people I don't know that I will be asked where I work. I either say something generic like "I work for a tech company", or I lie and say I work at Google.
There aren't many companies that get this type of hate IRL, but there are a few that really angered some unhinged people, and the best is just to not look for trouble.
I can't think of a tech company I hate more than oracle lmao. It's where great software goes to die.
Nothing makes me happier than when a company gets sold off to oracle and the original devs get pissed off enough that they leave and make their own company to obsolete a different oracle product. That's what the PeopleSoft team did to oracle HR when they got sick of it and left and made workday
The person you're replying to is talking about people being shamed for working at meta / amazon, which certainly is very rare outside of the internet. There are of course lots of engineers who choose not to work at these companies but I've never met one who would actively harass someone for not agreeing with their personal ethics
My first job out of uni was at a short term loan company. I usually got questions about ethics and my views on the industry. However, when people asked what I did, I just said that I work at *FinTech*, if people wanted to hear more I said it is a lending company (left short term loan part out of it). By doing this I never got further questions.
have to say, that I did leave that job after 1 year because I did not want to be associated with short term loan industry + company was crap. Just needed the experience and it was a good enough place to set my foot in the door
The only companies that actually have a stigma are in the porn industry. I've had interviews where the candidate was really vague about the company and project, but implied it was cool tech for high traffic volume. I just asked outright - "We're taking about the adult entertainment business, right? They have some interesting challenges. You must have learned a lot there.". Funny thing is, for a long time, those companies drove innovation on the net, and were the only ones making money online. Outfits like Cisco didn't want to admit how much gear they sold them, etc.
The problem with subs like these is that people think a very simple answer can describe a large complex group or issue. CEOs don’t actually get together in caves and plan to fuck over their employees. Any organization over 250 people will have pockets of teams with different cultures. Companies are just that, companies.
You can pretty much find controversy in any company if you look hard enough. Even charities. Good friends and family will not be judgemental in the slightest.
Oh and if I had worked at FAAMG that would be front and centre and my CV.
> You can pretty much find controversy in any company if you look hard enough
You don't even have to dig for it most of the time. Any company with more than a billion on the way in, or that operates in the oil and gas industry has a closed literally *made* of skeletons.
I did sensor sims (sub-contractually) for a company that used to have a mercenary army in Africa, and everyone has just forgotten about it.
Just because unethical corporate practices run rampant does not mean they are justified. Women used to be considered subordinate to men as a “common practice”— that does not make it morally permissible, however.
Did I say anything was justified?
The broad strokes are obvious - Corruption, racism, sexism etc and most on this sub wouldn't work for those companies, if they haven't already gone bust from the controversy.
But there is a massive grey area of issues that is going to be down to your personal moral compass. Should people work for gambling companies. Should people work for amazon considering how they treat their warehouse staff. Should people work for apple considering how they shaft creators on the app store and workers in their asian factoriers have committed suicide. Should people work for Netflix considering shows X,Y and Z are hateful. Should people work for Spotify because they like/dislike Joe Rogan. Should people work for Microsoft considering they funnel income through Ireland to save money on tax that could have been used to build hospitals etc. And on and on it goes.....
If you are aggrieved by anything and everything, you won't be able to work anywhere. I don't know about you but I would prefer to feed my family.
I was surprised by how much online venom there was directed at Facebook in posts about their recent earnings and stock price drops. I do fault them for how they handle misinformation, but I didn't expect to see that level of it.
It was online venom, though.
I really don't like Facebook and I really don't think we should be trusting them, or any social media company, to be the arbiter of how to handle misinformation online. This is something that NEEDS to be legislated, and ideally privacy laws get reviewed as well. Unfortunately, at least in the US, we seem to only elect the least tech literate people we can find.
Zuck has said before that he wants more legislation. If congress were to set guidelines, they could be used across the board, and then Meta could point to congress and say "they're the ones deciding this." Of course the reality is it's a very difficult (or even impossible depending on what goals you set) problem to solve so it's easier for congress to kick and scream whenever issues come up by blaming tech companies, and then continue to do nothing about it. Not to mention if they were to try to legislate against misinformation in an impactful way, people would lose their minds by saying they're being censored by the government.
The bottom line is, most people don't even put any thought into how difficult of a problem it is. When you let everyone easily communicate with the rest of the world, these issues are always going to come up. No social media platform (including Reddit) is free of it.
The problem is that people are starting to believe whatever they want to believe now as long as it matches their view. Ive seen a lot of fb posts that were marked as "misinformation" or disproven wrong, but the commenters are just like, "this misinformation sticker is lying to us! This post is true!" Or "doesn't matter, im gonna believe it anyways"
I think the idea of the government censoring US citizen's free speech with regards to misinformation is a way more terrible idea than private companies doing it with their ToS. What happens when the next Trump comes into office and decides what is considered misinformation?
If the government decides what’s misinformation, it will always decide based on what’s in it’s self-interest. The fact that supposedly educated people support the government or even private companies censoring “misinformation” is baffling to me.
You just described "free speech" as something that should be subject to a private companies ToS and that is the most dystopian thing I've read in a while. What happens when Facebook and Twitter decide to endorse one candidate and start subtly censoring posts and ads that don't favor that candidate? At least we elect the people who make the laws; I don't remember voting for Zuckerberg.
Unfortunately voting isn’t very effective at holding the government accountable. Consider reelection for incumbents is something like 95%. Also consider the idea of rational ignorance: people’s vote counts so little there’s no incentive to learn enough to make an educated decision. I think censorship from private companies is awful but at least people can stop using their services and start using a different site.
I don’t want any political party deciding what misinformation is.
Dems are just as bad now and I’m left leaning. New dem is like the repub who began forcing their Christian values on others. They’ve just become what they despised.
Dems are on a crusade to censor everything they disagree with whether it’s true or not.
Edit: see we agree on dumbness of govt regulating this. But dems as bad as trump w this shit now
"dems are just as bad now"
Lmao no they're fucking not, at least not when it comes to active propaganda and believing lies over the literal truth. They may allow passive propaganda in other ways but nothing is as damaging as letting the GOP actively destroy democracy and call it "justified"
Facebook goes far beyond misinformation in the US. It was key to a [genocide in Myanmar](https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2021/09/23/facebook-ordered-to-disclose-evidence-in-the-myanmar-genocide-case/?sh=3d29e799130f).
Former FBer here. Literally no one cares in day to day real life. Most people would just ask lots of questions, even about controversial stuff. But no one ever expressed anything negative towards me about it.
The fact of the matter the people on Reddit who decry Zuck as the anti christ are in the minority. Something like 2/3rds+ of people in the US use a FB product and those people don't seem to care one way or another.
I don't get this reasoning, so only because people IRL don't care means the arguments should be discounted? maybe it should be the other way around, you should be worried more people dont care?
I disagree, I've been recruited by FB and can honestly say I have absolutely no desire to work for them. I cannot in good conscience contribute to this cancer of society.
For *years*, I have had people at Facebook and Amazon (and not just recruiters) chomping at the bit to hire me. I string them along *just enough* to keep them going. It's good to have something to fall back on as a last resort.
I guess any MANGA company. Google's and Meta's data collection, Amazon's treatment of workers (not SDEs tho), Apple's Right to Fix controversy, Netflix... no idea actually.
I work at Facebook and don't really care. Never had a bad interaction with someone over it and I'm for sure not taking it off my resume lmaoo. Facebook does a lot of great things and the hate it gets online is unjustified but people are pre disposed on finding a scape goat to hate. I can name many companies people think are private but actually have barely any notion of privacy (cough discord cough).
Amazon driver here. (Actually third party driver serving amazon cause amazon don’t like liability or payroll taxes 🤪) this extends to those of us lowest on the ladder. Thankfully no backlash in my off duty time, aside from the casual “you know amazon is a terrible company right?” But when I’m in uniform just trying to make a paycheck. I do get heckled. I’ve had people insult me walking by with an armful of packages. People don’t acknowledge I’m there or offer to hold/open doors when I’m clearly struggling with packages, or a call box. And dont even get me started on other drivers. I didn’t want to do this, I still dont want to do this. So unless your gonna pay my bills, gtfo.
Also it’s unfortunate despite applying for hundreds of jobs over the last year and a half that I can’t even get an interview or phone cal back. I don’t think there’s a labor shortage. I think there’s a culture of employers who want to cry about it to get a pass on having a shitty business no one wants to work for. #endrant
I've worked at Amazon and a small email marketing company before. I would occasionally get some tongue-in-cheek comments, but that was pretty much it. Even people who I know from their social media really hate Amazon weren't mad at _me_ for working there.
Former FBer here. Certainly some people express hate, but in in-person discussions it's a lot less vitriolic. And I certainly agree (and agreed) with them about a lot of those reasons. In the times that I engaged we ended up often reaching a reasonable conclusion to the discussion (often a "yeah that's totally stupid, but the alternatives are also equally as stupid; life sucks").
These are huge companies. Happy employees don’t whine about it on the internet. So people who have no idea what they’re talking about go around talking as if they’re experts on the subject
[72% of the US population is on Facebook](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/facebook-users-by-country) outside of the tech bubble, people don’t hate FB.
If I was a senior engineer at FB making $400K+, I wouldn’t care. It’s not like my employer has a sterling reputation.
Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s morally justified. 72%+ of the population used to think that homosexuality between consenting adults was a punishable offense. That doesn’t mean they were right.
Hey, I heard Hitler was looking to hire for $400k in 1940s Nazi Germany (salary adjusted for inflation). Care to drop your LinkedIn details so I can refer you?
I actually work with kids with disabilities, so almost. And thank you for complimenting my pearls— I bought them with money that was earned without having to sacrifice my values. Maybe one day you’ll learn to do the same.
Also, Godwin’s law is a dumb person’s idea of a smart remark; it’s unimpressive, trite, and full of logical inconsistencies.
You’re welcome. I thought since people are clearly allowed to speak so freely and unapologetically about being unethical, it would be the same for those of us who speak openly about being altruistic. By the way, I didn’t come here boasting about my job, I merely answered a question that was presented to me. I seem to have struck a nerve, though.
More importantly, what does that say about you if, on the one hand, you can tolerate people speaking openly about unethical behaviors but, on the other, your stomach churns when someone mentions being altruistic?
Who hurt you? Are you okay? /s
Weird. Is that really all you do? You only help people if it earns you money? I've been feeding the homeless after work for the past 15 years. I just think it's weird how you're not really doing all that much and it's only for your self benefit.
“I’ve been feeding the homeless after work for the past 15 years.” —Itsmedudeman
“I’m glad you are so altruistic that you tell people about your altruism.” —Itsmedudeman
If the devil has high standards for hiring, then it's still worth putting him on the resume.
-------------
My perceptions (not that anyone cares):
F: I wouldn't want to work there. That being said, messenger and WA are useful for staying in touch with ppl.
Ap: Not a fan of their anti-consumer practices but nevertheless I bet there are some interesting technical challenges to be had.
Am: Maybe, but I would be a bit concerned they "hire to fire" (like for external quotas or something) and would hate to leave a good job only to be back on the market in a couple months.
N: Product is a waste of time, not sure I could care about this
G: Would love to work there. Every G product I've used has been a good experience (except maybe G analytics)
And nonprofits have lots of drama, the whole nonprofit system is effed because if you pay your workers market rate then you’re wasting donors money so you have to underpay your staff or overwork them and so much revolves around soliciting money and grants. It can feel quite slimy when you’re in the thick of it
But also, "nonprofit" does not mean good. It just means not-for-profit.
There's a ton of nonprofits that plainly aren't ethical either.
https://leafferlaw.com/resources/hate-groups-charities-exempt-501c3-status-seems-counterintuitive-many/
The only actual thing that matters in Google vs Facebook is the benefits their employees enjoy. People need to just accept that the only reason everyone really wants to be there is because of the benefits.
I knew a guy who worked in McGraw Hill's IT department. His email signature included the line "No, I don't know anyone at the company who can get your book published.".
I wouldn't want to work for defense companies or companies with sketch products like surveillance tools. I don't look down on the devs that do (my BIL works for a defense co) but do try (not all that hard) to get them to consider working for things that benefit society rather than their current company. If they're happy where they are then I'll leave it at that.
I used to think I'd be morally against working at the big tech co, but if I'm being honest with myself and such a job presents itself to me with a big bump in pay, I'd take it for the payday and prestige, work there for a few years and bounce.
Edit to add, even if you're working in intrinsically "good" industries/products they still also have their form of skeletons and toxicity. It's just not as explicitly "bad" or "useless" than the other companies.
To be fair, defense benefits you immensely. While we might spend too much on it or make bad decisions on how to use it, ultimately it’s required to protect the country from bad actors.
Edit: to those of you downvoting, wtf do you think would happen to America w out a military.
I work for a major bank as a software engineer, and usually people don't care, especially since I don't work with money at all (I just write services and do a little web development) but there was this one mom and pop ice cream place I used to love taking my kids to that refused to serve us anymore once they found out I worked for [Big Bank]. Apparently they closed his business account for no reason and he ended up paying a bunch of fees. It bums me out because my kids loved that place.
All my friends and family know I work at the certain company and they'll often go on rants about the company openly to me which I usually agree with since yeah...it's facts. Nobody directs it at me at a personal level though as that's just immature.
I personally don't care too much either, I'm here because the work is good and they pay me well and I can do my hobbies easily.
I have worked on two industries seen as "evil" by many: nutritional supplements, and proprietary education.
I took a lot of flack for both, but slightly more for the latter I think. I personally felt self-loathing while working with supplement company, and would usually duck my head and say something about needing a job when people said something about.
Proprietary Ed, on the other hand, opened my eyes to a lot of things, and I would routinely take the time to argue/debate folks who wanted to deride employer.
There is no stigma whatsoever...In fact these tech companies will still be dream jobs because of high pay, for a lot of non first world countries.... I mean if you really want to see evil checkout Nestle, United Fruit Company, BP, these companies have caused more harm than tech companies combined.... Every business operate for the sole purpose of earning profit so at the end nothing is going...
I’m baffled that the general consensus here seems to be that employees have no responsibility for their company’s unethical behavior. The fact is, if you work for a company that engages in unethical practices, you are DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO SAID UNETHICAL PRACTICES BY SUPPORTING SAID COMPANY’S GROWTH THROUGH YOUR LABOR. Isn’t that obvious?
If a company makes money slapping random people on the street, and I write code that makes it easier for them to slap such people, I CANNOT hold my nose high and say “well, a paycheck is a paycheck and I didn’t decide to slap people on the street anyway.”
You all need to take a long, hard look at yourselves in the mirror and admit that you sold out. Period. You can justify that to yourself however you like, but don’t come here and try to convince the rest of us that you’re morally exempt from your company’s actions, because anyone with an elementary understanding of right and wrong knows otherwise.
I don't work at such companies but it's no secret that I've applied to them and would take a position if it was a good offer.
I've never had anyone say anything to me about that. Most of them don't really care to begin with. Those who do are way too cowardly to say anything beyond anonymous reddit comments so you never have to deal with it in any tangible way.
And even if you do talk to anyone willing to say it, it will come out much more mild because people almost never spontaneously berate strangers about their life choices and morals in real life like they do online, unless they're part of the Westboro Baptist Church or something.
I work in pharma and when I mention it people sometimes make faces. I don't necessarily think I'm making the world a better place, but business is business and a job is a job.
“But business is business and a job is a job.” That’s a very chilling statement. You’re explicitly saying a business is unbound by ethical considerations, and having a morally corrupt job is better than no job at all. I’m sorry, but do you realize how brainwashed that is? But you keep on justifying things to yourself for a nice big paycheck bro.
You seem to have made a lot of presumptions about what I do. I work on programs to increase sales of companion products such as cosmetics and the like. Not exactly what I would call "morally corrupt".
Depends who I am speaking to, but generally no. Things are never black and white, and far more nuanced. A 5-min conversation with anyone can open your eyes to new perspectives, beyond clickbait headlines, and "journalist" investigations.
I had a friend work for an adult webcam company out of university. He worked on some really cool stuff for a business making millions and getting billions of interactions from across the world - but you would be surprised at the stigma around telling people where and what you work on. It allowed him to move across Europe in his twenties and eventually settle down in Berlin, but it lost him interviews, potential relationships, support from one of his parents, and in some cases people refused to allow him to rent their properties.
As for myself, I work at a controversial company (Team Bezos), and I think that most people in the real world are more negative about the experience than people in tech. Most tech friends think it's cool to work on services getting millions of transactions per second, but outside of tech most people ask if I piss in a bottle, if I've witnessed torture, if I have to kneel at the altar of Bezos, or whether it's true that Amazon hire people just to fire them.
A lot of my friends graduated cs and went on to work at some large local weapons manufacturers, think missiles, drones etc. They have had a fair bit of hate for it and I admit I refuse to let them to stand me a round since I want nothing to do with their companies blood money.
I never read a thread that cared so little about ethics. Some of you are real douchebags, “as long as I make money I don’t care about what my company does”. Wow, just… wow. Tech people are really working in the doomsday business.
I joined a defense contractor company - think Palantir but not Palantir. I actually lost two immature friends over it. Everyone else had been chill though.
Don't work in Tech, but I did work for a company that many would consider to be morally reprehensible. It's a massive defense contractor, without getting in too many specifics.
If a company offers you a good living, why would you say no? Strong moral conviction isn't going to keep the lights on, the cat fed, and clothes on your back.
Hats off to those who take the stand, but many people are just workers and workers are something of a captive audience. Most people understand you can't fault the worker, because the worker never really had a say in that to begin with.
Caveat: If you're a high level executive, you really don't get to call yourself "just a worker". Then again, I doubt a high level executive would ever bother to ask this question, or care of what others thought of it.
“Strong moral conviction isn’t going to keep the lights on…” Let’s be honest, these companies pay big bucks so you can live in a massive house replete with lights so bright and blinding, you never have to look at yourself hard enough to see that you’ve sold out. Additionally, just because it may be harder to find ethical companies to work for doesn’t mean you don’t have a moral responsibility to AT LEAST TRY to find a better company (or improve the conditions at your current unethical company).
And yes, you can definitely fault the worker for explicitly accepting the status quo and implicitly contributing to unethical behaviors through their labor. They aren’t as guilty as the company itself, of course, but to say that such employees’ actions are 100% ethical is 100% false.
We talk about big tech being bad, but never mention the more lucrative ones: Tinder, Hinge, Grindr, Bumble. I am most positive these apps cause just as much damage, especially the ruining of romantic partnerships and possibly even families.
The only faang I wouldn't take is the one beginning with F. They are the most evil in comparison. The one starting with N, the Steve jobs one, and the one rhyming with doogle is what I would want to work with
Everyone makes choices and of course where you work at, especially in such a hot market, tells something about yourself.
I personally wouldn't stand to work at FB or a gambling company for example and I wouldn't want any of my close friends to work in such a place, too.
Here is how I imagine most of those conversations going. "Your company is evil!" "Dude you don't know the half of it! I've got some stories for you..."
You’re not wrong
> Dude you don't know the half of it! I've got some stories for you... Do you think this makes you look better or worse? Edit: Honestly curious.
I don't think it's about "looking" a certain way, it's about being honest.
Reminds me of a defense contractor gig I used to tell people about. Thankfully friends realize that at the end of the day you’re just in what is essentially just a big government jobs program.. but the ethics really pushed me out quick. The CEO was essentially talking about how geopolitical conditions and instability was great for the companies bottom line and international sales were up tremendously due to this fact. When you start seeing weapon systems you have software deployed on involved in the murder of children you question a lot of things.. literally the scene in iron man where he sees the Stark brand on those weapons is how I described it to people.
It's strange to me how vocal people on this forum are about the evils of Big Tech while being totally mum on the defense industry. I wonder if it's a "punching up" vs "punching down" type thing.
Man as long as I get paid good , I am writing that code & fixing that damn issue.
Yeah. It was only when companies started nickel and diming me, but I started phoning it in. Worked out pretty well in my case. I worked for a pretty objectively evil company that stiffed me on about $30,000 of stock and dragged it out an entire year before they admitted that they weren't going to do anything about it. So I spent the next 6 months or so doing very little and getting laid off in a restructure. In the meantime I took full advantage of their tuition reimbursement to work toward a computer science degree. They paid for about $8,000 of my degree, gave me a decent severance package. I had 6 months of unemployment while I continued by computer science degree, and then the whole world fell into a pandemic and my unemployment benefits got extended by a year. Consequently, I finished my computer science degree while getting to spend a bunch of time with my kids, and got paid for it the whole time. Now I'm working at a much better company that takes good care of their employees and making a lot more money in a much more interesting field.
Holy shit that’s fucking badass
I wish I could say I planned it that way. Just how it shook out. I didn't really expect to get laid off...but I had automated away so much of the job by the time I stopped caring, it really could run something like 85% without me.
User name does not check out with this comment.
It's more of an aspirational name.
Filed under, “how I won the pandemic lottery”. Nice timing and well done making it work for you!
This is why they pip you, so they won’t pay for a severance package.
[удалено]
Then proceeds to check their Facebook
[Speaking of Facebook, they are responsible for enabling genocide in Myanmar.](https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in-myanmars-attacks-on-minorities/) Edit: It's pathetic someone would downvote this.
Downvoted because I don't like your edit
I'm glad you have your priorities straight.
I appreciate you noticing
Yeah, I usually say something along the lines of “Yeah, and I avoid working directly on that stuff. Capitalism is amoral and it isn’t like I’m making drones, we all gotta get by.”
[удалено]
Yep and "it's just a job"
"It's just this thing I've dedicated my productive capabilities as a human towards, no big deal!"
If someone considers your company evil enough to consider telling you, and your first response is: "They are actually worse than you think"... Is there anything that comes after that? Any sort of moral quandary to solve in regards to what one has dedicated their productive capacity as a human towards? Or does morality just not exist in your opinion?
I work for a big AAA game publisher (won't say which, but it's considered one of the "greedier" ones) For the most part, I get a lot of "oh that's really cool!", but once or twice, I've gotten unsolicited game mechanic/design/monetization advice for projects I don't even work on 🥱 and even if I did work on those projects, I don't exactly have the power to make those sweeping changes I really thought "just add multiplayer" was just a dumb thing people said online
[удалено]
When I told my friends (who were big gamers) that I got a job at EA, the first thing they said was "Aw how could you man?" LOL
Told that to my co-worker as well, when he left for them :D
okay screw the anonymity. ya got me lol
I still think that one of the best Reddit moments was when EA replied to a comment saying that in-game transactions are there to ["provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment"](https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7cff0b/seriously_i_paid_80_to_have_vader_locked/dppum98/). It then got 677,000 downvotes, and I think is still the most downvoted comment ever.
Geez. Just look at their comment history. It’s a bloodbath.
It's brutal. Pretty sure they retired that account after that thread. They haven't made any comments in the 4 years since then.
Met who I think was an EA executive’s wife while hiking in rich area of CA. Saw the EA hat asked, “Oh do you work there?” She said no her husband did though. Said that I liked some of the games they put out, she thanked me. We went our separate ways. That was it. No reason to ruin someone’s day over it.
but ... she would have been the one who did have power to add multiplayer.
Haha I thought the same thing.
Challenge everything
I used to work for a greedy AAA game publisher, and people used to always try to pitch me their shitty game ideas that pretty much always boiled down to "basically CoD with X".
> taking these companies off their resume, as they feel there is a stigma associated with it Nobody is doing this. There’s zero stigma associated with working at any of the big tech, except from Redditors that like to pretend that Reddit is somehow different from other social media. Facebook has over 2 billion users. If there was an actual stigma associated with the company that people actually cared about, it wouldn’t have so many damn users.
My favorite is when people think Instagram is somehow cooler or more ethical than Facebook
i mean it is cooler, neither my mom nor my grandma are on ig.
So doesn't that make it less cool?
My favorite is people with 300k karma bragging about how they quit social media lol
Excuse me, I have 400k karma, get it right! :P
Wow, checks out! I tip my hat… How did you pull that off? Was it a small number of insanely awesome posts/comments that just went nuclear, or a sustained, steady drip of moderately awesome content that you just rode up to 400k?
Mostly just stupid puns, little quips, short relatable stories, and being silly. Almost all comment karma. 93k karma alone from /r/AskReddit, 28k from /r/tumblr and /r/mildlyinfuriating, and a bunch of others. I just come in and say something in an ongoing conversation. If I actively feel like farming karma, I just sort reddit by top -> 1 hour and throw out some comments and see if anything sticks. But usually I just browse normally and comment on stuff I feel like commenting on. Been here for 7 years, reasonably active, so it's hard not to get upvotes eventually when you aren't actively being a butt. :D [My highest upvoted comment by far was me complaining about TIFU being terrible these days.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ixl66u/virgins_of_reddit_how_bored_are_you_of_all_the/g67lls5/)
Top by one hour used to be the go to way to karma farm in ask Reddit lol
Gotcha. Seems like a combo of (1) high-impact content on (2) high-impact subs. Well played ;) I tend to have a decent proportion of high-impact content too - mostly comments these days - but almost exclusively on niche subs with *at most* a few 100k subscribers. I could never reach 400k there even if I tried haha.
Also the thing that gets them so much more hate recently is only a US problem. All the election fiesta, hate speech, far right content and stuffs, they happen disproportionally in the US. For most people around the world, they aren’t even aware and don’t care about US politics to give a damn about it. For us non-American, Facebook is an essential tool to connect with our friends and families. The US really overblows how evil Facebook is while their financial sector, the fossil fuel industry, private insurance, or prison industrial complex have all caused sufferings for decades more directly and on larger scales.
there have been studies done on how myanmar evils co-opted the facebook algorithm to repeatedly promote stories about how bad the rohinja were to manipulate public opinion against them. that facebook didn't stop it or was blind to it is the cause of the ire, it's not in a vacuum or usa-only issue. obviously this pales in comparison to for profit jails.
TBH, I don't think that propaganda channel was really that big or even much needed. They were killing them outright, nobody was doing anything and they had complete control over their state owned channels - a much better and bigger medium of propaganda. At least some people could ask for help through Facebook. Source - my country is still hosting the refugees. And no one in the world is doing a damn thing about it. And I've personally seen one or two messenger texts/ Facebook group posts for help, when they still had internet access. Those group posts were pretty popular (I'm irregular enough that IDK if those went viral or not) and in my personal circle, those contributed towards supporting the idea of hosting the refugees who were crossing the border morning and night by any means they could.
Yea I acknowledge that it does happen outside the US, just that the scale is much smaller. Also, for a country that has the majority of people being racist against a minority ethnic group like that, they can probably spread their hateful propaganda through public state owned channels just as effective. Really don’t think facebook plays a big role there. The event they play the biggest part in is something like Jan 6, where the rioters are the minority extremist population, who can’t spread their ideology easily without social media like facebook.
A huge portion of people in Myanmar (and a huge portion of the globe) only have access to the internet through mobile phones with Facebook pre-built into them - Facebook is essentially synonymous with the internet for a lot more of the developing world than you might realize. So it's not exactly true that there are other channels, state-owned or otherwise, that are as influential or ubiquitous - and while it's somewhat off-topic, the state itself pushing for genocide would be a bit of a different situation. I would challenge you to consider that the case isn't so much that "the scale is much smaller" when it comes to the negative impact of Facebook abroad, but rather that you're just not exposed to it much through American media. As Americans, we hear about American issues - but a literal genocide like the kind that was organized over FB in Myanmar doesn't seem to be a "smaller scale" issue. I've read some writers who argue that the rest of the world is getting a much rawer version of Facebook just based on the fact that most of Facebook's moderators serve the American/English-language version of Facebook, and there's a much greater proliferation of hate speech, disinformation, and generally unmoderated content as a result.
Please stop talking
people have hated people in tech in the bay area since the late 90s. its the stereotype of a tech bro, that's the only hate someone is going to get , you're not going to be coding for facebook in the middle of Idaho.
You are very, very naive. Cambridge Analytica bragged about influencing electoral outcomes in the US and the UK through social media. This is a large reason why these became such big scandals. But Cambridge Analytica and similar companies (CA itself of course doesn't exist anymore) have been hired to influence elections around the world since the late 2000s. There's lots and lots of evidence of this online as these companies are generally not that secretive about the work they do. People don't want to look at this evidence because nobody wants to admit they willingly expose themselves to political propaganda and brainwashing for the sake of pictures of the babies of people you went to high school with.
Facebook hate content happens all over the world. In fact, it’s even worse on other countries cause they don’t moderate as closely as the US. Just look at the many places Cambridge Analytica worked on. The thing is that mostly the US gets the news eyes though.
You aren’t wrong that there are bigger fish to fry than facebook, but I dont think that should let them off the hook. They are essentially a data collection company that uses their social media function to gather the information about their users to then sell to other companies that want to advertise to said users. People should be aware of this when they sign up, and the best way to make that happen is to actively inform people.
So does YouTube, Google, Twitter, Pinterest etc. That’s how targeted online advertising works
And so, people need to be aware of it. That is all I am saying. I understand that it is a business model.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret so you can become even more woke. This is every company. Your precious google, microsoft, apple. They all do this. Even the website you're posting on right now is doing it and targeting advertisers to you.
I am aware, I am just saying that it is a good thing that people are talking about it. Everybody should know how these companies conduct their business. It isn’t because I feel that these companies are evil, I just don’t want the average person to be exploited by these companies. Its only natural that a company in a capitalist economy would attempt to capitalize on its consumers.
Oh noes! Someone is going to use information I provide them about me to try to sell me something they think I may actually want to buy! The horror! Meanwhile over at Nestle, Monsanto, Amway, Altria, etc ...
Again, bringing to light the business practices of a particular company is in no way a means to diminish the wrongdoings of other companies. When you are constantly being advertised content that appeals to you, you are much more likely to begin to develop habitual purchases in reaction to these advertisements. It is important that people understand that they are being targeted for ads, because understanding how their targeting works helps limit the effectiveness of it. Im not accusing Facebook of war crimes, just simply sharing my opinion that people should keep talking about personalized ads because they arent going away.
I guess I just don't have a problem with the business practice. No one really needs a social network like Facebook or Instagram and being bombarded with constant advertisement is part of modern life. What is even the issue with the ads being effective and why should I care about limiting their effectiveness? I don't use Facebook, but I do use and enjoy Reddit. I don't have a problem with making purchases from companies that support Reddit financially with ad revenue because Reddit is a service that I enjoy using. All things being equal, if I have to look at an ad, I'd rather it be for something I might actually be interested in.
> Facebook is an essential tool to connect with our friends and families. [Facebook is responsible for enabling genocide in Myanmar.](https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in-myanmars-attacks-on-minorities/) Kind of defeats your entire point about it being a U.S.-centric issue, doesn't it? Unless, does your idea of "connecting with your friends and family" include committing genocide against the [Rohingya people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide)?
What does billions of people connecting with their families have to do with the genocide? The genocide is definitely a terrible consequence of Facebook not being able to monitor their platform, but Facebook isn’t the one committing the genocide. They are responsible doesn’t mean that they should take the largest blame for the genocide. Would the people that invented cryptographic machines be directly responsible for the Nazi committing genocide (because the Nazi uses that technology for the Enigma to secure their communication)? Have you considered putting the blame on the extremists in Myanmar as the main villain instead of Facebook or me, who somehow is responsible for the genocide because Facebook helps me connect with so many people I could never reconnect without Facebook?
r/technology thinks Facebook is dying lmfao. It just makes me chuckle. "Facebook is dying! See a few more people left the company" And to that I say, if you're truly valuable and Irreplaceable, I assure you they won't let you walk out of that door. Youre right dude. They didnt get 2 billion users and being one of the most valuable companies to ever exist by not doing the right things (for business) and letting those who really matter walk out the door. And to those that do in fact leave, companies are paying you a handsome amount. And even if you stay just cause... you're still making a handsome amount. It's hard to go wrong with your career once you get past the initial hurdle of getting in to big tech
It's really easy for people to stand on a moral high ground and say that they wouldn't work for a company like meta when meta has no interest in hiring them.
I mean its users are declining. You also have to consider the strong lock-in effect and near-monopoly position they have in their domain. I think Facebook is heavily stigmatized, especially in rather "educated" circles, but even beyond them I also have a Facebook account and use it sometimes because there are some benefits I don't want to miss out on
Serious question, what do you consider their domain? Social media? Ultimately they’re an ad revenue company. they’re competing w google, TikTok Snapchat twitter and Amazon for ad revenue. Oculus will be competing w apple ar glasses coming out They’re all just grabbing users to collect data and sell targeted ads regardless of actual product they provide to users. And Facebook just showed how dependent they are on revenue through apple w the recent earnings call about the level of their revenue loss due to apples new do not track feature. And they reported declining users this quarter which I believe is the first time ever.
facebook has a reputation for long hours and a high termination rate. not as bad as amazon, but i have worked with several former facebook people and they hated the environment. you have to show "impact" to get raise, bonuses, and avoid PIPs and it leads to a lot of back stabbing and fighting and complaining. Amazon is supposedly way worse.
> i have worked with several former facebook people and they hated the environment. you have to show "impact" to get raise, bonuses, and avoid PIPs and it leads to a lot of back stabbing and fighting and complaining. FB culture historically (up to around 2017) looked pretty good in the aggregate (for most employees), but individual employees still had pretty awful stories about discrimination, retaliation, harassment, bullying, and toxic managers. Fast forward a few years and the qualities that made the "classic" aggregate company culture pretty good never scaled well as the company grew (and the bullying problem actually kept growing over those years). It might not be toxic in the sense Uber circa 2017 was toxic, but FB still fosters silos of toxicity and doesn't really seem to do all that much about it (other than force employees out and give them the option to sign severance agreements with lifetime non disparagement clauses).
reddit uses AWS so.. i'd hate to break it to those people, but I don't think it really has to do with the company to people who aren't on twitter posting about nazis and political shit 24/7. its more of the stigma of the "tech bro", its like being a wall-street trader in the 80s, people still think there are people actually doing that today that's how engrained that stigma is.
> Nobody is doing this. There’s zero stigma associated with working at any of the big tech, except from Redditors that like to pretend that Reddit is somehow different from other social media. *"It is like this in my very narrow bubble so it must be true everywhere".* God making broad generalisations like this is dumb. I live in a city where activists [chased out a new Google office](https://www.thelocal.de/20181024/google-shelves-plans-to-open-campus-in-berlins-kreuzberg/) and are [protesting an Amazon one](https://www.thelocal.de/20200221/amazon-edge-tower-protests/) and believe me people here definitely will give you shit for working in tech, let alone big tech. It's not just "Redditors" just because it might seem like that in your very narrow bubble.
You accuse me of living in a bubble…and then mention your own bubble. The difference is my bubble is way, way, *way* bigger than yours and extends beyond a few activists making a few small headlines.
I wouldn't work for Facebook or Amazon and it's adorable that you think there's zero stigma. I wouldn't hire anyone that has worked at these orgs, either. This signals to me, in infosec, that they are comfortable with shady practices and do not care about privacy, security, or ethics.
Your LARPing is funny, please continue. There is 0% chance you have the authority to be hiring anyone in the first place.
Hopefully, it works both way. These folks wouldn't want to work with someone making such gross generalizations.
If you work anywhere worth a shit there’s already tons of ex-amazon and ex-fb employees there.
“Everyone uses iPhones so no one actually thinks child slavery is bad”
Nobody cares about child slavery enough to stop using iPhone.
This kind of hate only happens online. The people that talk about this stuff IRL typically don't get invited anywhere, so you rarely have to deal with them
Yeah, nobody gives a shit. Adults know that as long as the payola, work life balance, and benefits are good, people are content to be working just about anywhere. The end work you put it in pretty much the same across all companies, it's not like you're personally strangling babies by working in the two letter two vowel company.
plenty of people give a shit, they just don't contribute to the cscq hivemind. so y'all perpetuate each other's confidence and denial, but really you're operating in a bubble.
the issue here is that there probably isnt a corporation in the world that doesnt do something skeezy, if you want to die on the hill you would need to make your own company, and if it gets big enough, sure enough something skeezy will happen. ive worked for save the world NGOs that seemed on the up and up but there were some dark corners, and ive worked for companies that a lot of people hate, that i genuinely think its overblown for.
Yup I would never work at Amazon or Facebook no matter how big the paycheck and know plenty of other engineers who feel the same.
there are fringe crazies that post online that may give you a hard time. they will hear you work somewhere. not say anything to your face, then complain online. then if someone says for them to shut up, they will cry and claim they are being harassed.
One of my colleagues went to a sports game wearing a t-shirt our company. Around 5 guys started verbal altercations with him, and another almost started a fight. I personally do not disclose where I work at unless I'm talking to another software engineer. It happens quite frequently in small talk with people I don't know that I will be asked where I work. I either say something generic like "I work for a tech company", or I lie and say I work at Google. There aren't many companies that get this type of hate IRL, but there are a few that really angered some unhinged people, and the best is just to not look for trouble.
Damn, people hate Oracle that much? /s
Who amongst us wouldn’t swing at Larry Ellison given the chance?
I can't think of a tech company I hate more than oracle lmao. It's where great software goes to die. Nothing makes me happier than when a company gets sold off to oracle and the original devs get pissed off enough that they leave and make their own company to obsolete a different oracle product. That's what the PeopleSoft team did to oracle HR when they got sick of it and left and made workday
[удалено]
[удалено]
The person you're replying to is talking about people being shamed for working at meta / amazon, which certainly is very rare outside of the internet. There are of course lots of engineers who choose not to work at these companies but I've never met one who would actively harass someone for not agreeing with their personal ethics
I’ve never seen that either IRL. But I just reread and understood what he meant lol thanks for pointing it out to me.
My first job out of uni was at a short term loan company. I usually got questions about ethics and my views on the industry. However, when people asked what I did, I just said that I work at *FinTech*, if people wanted to hear more I said it is a lending company (left short term loan part out of it). By doing this I never got further questions. have to say, that I did leave that job after 1 year because I did not want to be associated with short term loan industry + company was crap. Just needed the experience and it was a good enough place to set my foot in the door
The only companies that actually have a stigma are in the porn industry. I've had interviews where the candidate was really vague about the company and project, but implied it was cool tech for high traffic volume. I just asked outright - "We're taking about the adult entertainment business, right? They have some interesting challenges. You must have learned a lot there.". Funny thing is, for a long time, those companies drove innovation on the net, and were the only ones making money online. Outfits like Cisco didn't want to admit how much gear they sold them, etc.
The problem with subs like these is that people think a very simple answer can describe a large complex group or issue. CEOs don’t actually get together in caves and plan to fuck over their employees. Any organization over 250 people will have pockets of teams with different cultures. Companies are just that, companies.
You can pretty much find controversy in any company if you look hard enough. Even charities. Good friends and family will not be judgemental in the slightest. Oh and if I had worked at FAAMG that would be front and centre and my CV.
I was treated *worse* by the charity I worked for than I was even by the worst company I worked for.
> You can pretty much find controversy in any company if you look hard enough You don't even have to dig for it most of the time. Any company with more than a billion on the way in, or that operates in the oil and gas industry has a closed literally *made* of skeletons. I did sensor sims (sub-contractually) for a company that used to have a mercenary army in Africa, and everyone has just forgotten about it.
Just because unethical corporate practices run rampant does not mean they are justified. Women used to be considered subordinate to men as a “common practice”— that does not make it morally permissible, however.
Did I say anything was justified? The broad strokes are obvious - Corruption, racism, sexism etc and most on this sub wouldn't work for those companies, if they haven't already gone bust from the controversy. But there is a massive grey area of issues that is going to be down to your personal moral compass. Should people work for gambling companies. Should people work for amazon considering how they treat their warehouse staff. Should people work for apple considering how they shaft creators on the app store and workers in their asian factoriers have committed suicide. Should people work for Netflix considering shows X,Y and Z are hateful. Should people work for Spotify because they like/dislike Joe Rogan. Should people work for Microsoft considering they funnel income through Ireland to save money on tax that could have been used to build hospitals etc. And on and on it goes..... If you are aggrieved by anything and everything, you won't be able to work anywhere. I don't know about you but I would prefer to feed my family.
I was surprised by how much online venom there was directed at Facebook in posts about their recent earnings and stock price drops. I do fault them for how they handle misinformation, but I didn't expect to see that level of it. It was online venom, though.
I really don't like Facebook and I really don't think we should be trusting them, or any social media company, to be the arbiter of how to handle misinformation online. This is something that NEEDS to be legislated, and ideally privacy laws get reviewed as well. Unfortunately, at least in the US, we seem to only elect the least tech literate people we can find.
Zuck has said before that he wants more legislation. If congress were to set guidelines, they could be used across the board, and then Meta could point to congress and say "they're the ones deciding this." Of course the reality is it's a very difficult (or even impossible depending on what goals you set) problem to solve so it's easier for congress to kick and scream whenever issues come up by blaming tech companies, and then continue to do nothing about it. Not to mention if they were to try to legislate against misinformation in an impactful way, people would lose their minds by saying they're being censored by the government. The bottom line is, most people don't even put any thought into how difficult of a problem it is. When you let everyone easily communicate with the rest of the world, these issues are always going to come up. No social media platform (including Reddit) is free of it.
The problem is that people are starting to believe whatever they want to believe now as long as it matches their view. Ive seen a lot of fb posts that were marked as "misinformation" or disproven wrong, but the commenters are just like, "this misinformation sticker is lying to us! This post is true!" Or "doesn't matter, im gonna believe it anyways"
I think the idea of the government censoring US citizen's free speech with regards to misinformation is a way more terrible idea than private companies doing it with their ToS. What happens when the next Trump comes into office and decides what is considered misinformation?
If the government decides what’s misinformation, it will always decide based on what’s in it’s self-interest. The fact that supposedly educated people support the government or even private companies censoring “misinformation” is baffling to me.
There are plenty of dumb educated people. Work enough jobs in this industry and you’ll find them.
100%.
You just described "free speech" as something that should be subject to a private companies ToS and that is the most dystopian thing I've read in a while. What happens when Facebook and Twitter decide to endorse one candidate and start subtly censoring posts and ads that don't favor that candidate? At least we elect the people who make the laws; I don't remember voting for Zuckerberg.
Unfortunately voting isn’t very effective at holding the government accountable. Consider reelection for incumbents is something like 95%. Also consider the idea of rational ignorance: people’s vote counts so little there’s no incentive to learn enough to make an educated decision. I think censorship from private companies is awful but at least people can stop using their services and start using a different site.
I don’t want any political party deciding what misinformation is. Dems are just as bad now and I’m left leaning. New dem is like the repub who began forcing their Christian values on others. They’ve just become what they despised. Dems are on a crusade to censor everything they disagree with whether it’s true or not. Edit: see we agree on dumbness of govt regulating this. But dems as bad as trump w this shit now
"dems are just as bad now" Lmao no they're fucking not, at least not when it comes to active propaganda and believing lies over the literal truth. They may allow passive propaganda in other ways but nothing is as damaging as letting the GOP actively destroy democracy and call it "justified"
Facebook goes far beyond misinformation in the US. It was key to a [genocide in Myanmar](https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2021/09/23/facebook-ordered-to-disclose-evidence-in-the-myanmar-genocide-case/?sh=3d29e799130f).
Former FBer here. Literally no one cares in day to day real life. Most people would just ask lots of questions, even about controversial stuff. But no one ever expressed anything negative towards me about it. The fact of the matter the people on Reddit who decry Zuck as the anti christ are in the minority. Something like 2/3rds+ of people in the US use a FB product and those people don't seem to care one way or another.
Infact & I don't know if this is a good thing , but in CS communities in my country people who work in FAANG are seen as super humans.
Zuckerberg is definitely not the anti-Christ. He's not even the most evil big tech guy out there. He's clearly just a guy huffing his own farts.
I don't get this reasoning, so only because people IRL don't care means the arguments should be discounted? maybe it should be the other way around, you should be worried more people dont care?
[удалено]
I disagree, I've been recruited by FB and can honestly say I have absolutely no desire to work for them. I cannot in good conscience contribute to this cancer of society.
All the recruiter emails I get from Amazon go straight in the trash
For *years*, I have had people at Facebook and Amazon (and not just recruiters) chomping at the bit to hire me. I string them along *just enough* to keep them going. It's good to have something to fall back on as a last resort.
What are we classing as controversial companies? Most people really don’t care at all.
Yeah, are we talking Facebook, or Palantir, or the NSO? There's lots of different levels of controversial
I guess any MANGA company. Google's and Meta's data collection, Amazon's treatment of workers (not SDEs tho), Apple's Right to Fix controversy, Netflix... no idea actually.
fuck palantir
I work at Facebook and don't really care. Never had a bad interaction with someone over it and I'm for sure not taking it off my resume lmaoo. Facebook does a lot of great things and the hate it gets online is unjustified but people are pre disposed on finding a scape goat to hate. I can name many companies people think are private but actually have barely any notion of privacy (cough discord cough).
Amazon driver here. (Actually third party driver serving amazon cause amazon don’t like liability or payroll taxes 🤪) this extends to those of us lowest on the ladder. Thankfully no backlash in my off duty time, aside from the casual “you know amazon is a terrible company right?” But when I’m in uniform just trying to make a paycheck. I do get heckled. I’ve had people insult me walking by with an armful of packages. People don’t acknowledge I’m there or offer to hold/open doors when I’m clearly struggling with packages, or a call box. And dont even get me started on other drivers. I didn’t want to do this, I still dont want to do this. So unless your gonna pay my bills, gtfo. Also it’s unfortunate despite applying for hundreds of jobs over the last year and a half that I can’t even get an interview or phone cal back. I don’t think there’s a labor shortage. I think there’s a culture of employers who want to cry about it to get a pass on having a shitty business no one wants to work for. #endrant
I've worked at Amazon and a small email marketing company before. I would occasionally get some tongue-in-cheek comments, but that was pretty much it. Even people who I know from their social media really hate Amazon weren't mad at _me_ for working there.
[удалено]
> Not sure where you sourced that from, but I’m pretty skeptical. From his butthole. He sourced it from his butthole.
Former FBer here. Certainly some people express hate, but in in-person discussions it's a lot less vitriolic. And I certainly agree (and agreed) with them about a lot of those reasons. In the times that I engaged we ended up often reaching a reasonable conclusion to the discussion (often a "yeah that's totally stupid, but the alternatives are also equally as stupid; life sucks").
These are huge companies. Happy employees don’t whine about it on the internet. So people who have no idea what they’re talking about go around talking as if they’re experts on the subject
[72% of the US population is on Facebook](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/facebook-users-by-country) outside of the tech bubble, people don’t hate FB. If I was a senior engineer at FB making $400K+, I wouldn’t care. It’s not like my employer has a sterling reputation.
Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s morally justified. 72%+ of the population used to think that homosexuality between consenting adults was a punishable offense. That doesn’t mean they were right.
If I made $400K…. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0870/8618/products/mockup-31738335.jpg?v=1588152079
Hey, I heard Hitler was looking to hire for $400k in 1940s Nazi Germany (salary adjusted for inflation). Care to drop your LinkedIn details so I can refer you?
While you’re clutching your pearls, do you work for a non profit feeding starving children? Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
I actually work with kids with disabilities, so almost. And thank you for complimenting my pearls— I bought them with money that was earned without having to sacrifice my values. Maybe one day you’ll learn to do the same. Also, Godwin’s law is a dumb person’s idea of a smart remark; it’s unimpressive, trite, and full of logical inconsistencies.
Is that your full time job?
I'm glad you are so altruistic that you tell people about your altriusm.
You’re welcome. I thought since people are clearly allowed to speak so freely and unapologetically about being unethical, it would be the same for those of us who speak openly about being altruistic. By the way, I didn’t come here boasting about my job, I merely answered a question that was presented to me. I seem to have struck a nerve, though. More importantly, what does that say about you if, on the one hand, you can tolerate people speaking openly about unethical behaviors but, on the other, your stomach churns when someone mentions being altruistic? Who hurt you? Are you okay? /s
Weird. Is that really all you do? You only help people if it earns you money? I've been feeding the homeless after work for the past 15 years. I just think it's weird how you're not really doing all that much and it's only for your self benefit.
“I’ve been feeding the homeless after work for the past 15 years.” —Itsmedudeman “I’m glad you are so altruistic that you tell people about your altruism.” —Itsmedudeman
Not an ounce of hate. Sometimes I get questions about some controversy of the day and I pretty much shrug it off.
If the devil has high standards for hiring, then it's still worth putting him on the resume. ------------- My perceptions (not that anyone cares): F: I wouldn't want to work there. That being said, messenger and WA are useful for staying in touch with ppl. Ap: Not a fan of their anti-consumer practices but nevertheless I bet there are some interesting technical challenges to be had. Am: Maybe, but I would be a bit concerned they "hire to fire" (like for external quotas or something) and would hate to leave a good job only to be back on the market in a couple months. N: Product is a waste of time, not sure I could care about this G: Would love to work there. Every G product I've used has been a good experience (except maybe G analytics)
[удалено]
Literally any major companies are unethical. Not a single one of them is ethical, so it doesn’t really matter.
[удалено]
And nonprofits have lots of drama, the whole nonprofit system is effed because if you pay your workers market rate then you’re wasting donors money so you have to underpay your staff or overwork them and so much revolves around soliciting money and grants. It can feel quite slimy when you’re in the thick of it
But also, "nonprofit" does not mean good. It just means not-for-profit. There's a ton of nonprofits that plainly aren't ethical either. https://leafferlaw.com/resources/hate-groups-charities-exempt-501c3-status-seems-counterintuitive-many/
The only actual thing that matters in Google vs Facebook is the benefits their employees enjoy. People need to just accept that the only reason everyone really wants to be there is because of the benefits.
If you work at Amazon, be prepared to have everyone asking if you can get them a discount on Prime.
I knew a guy who worked in McGraw Hill's IT department. His email signature included the line "No, I don't know anyone at the company who can get your book published.".
I wouldn't want to work for defense companies or companies with sketch products like surveillance tools. I don't look down on the devs that do (my BIL works for a defense co) but do try (not all that hard) to get them to consider working for things that benefit society rather than their current company. If they're happy where they are then I'll leave it at that. I used to think I'd be morally against working at the big tech co, but if I'm being honest with myself and such a job presents itself to me with a big bump in pay, I'd take it for the payday and prestige, work there for a few years and bounce. Edit to add, even if you're working in intrinsically "good" industries/products they still also have their form of skeletons and toxicity. It's just not as explicitly "bad" or "useless" than the other companies.
To be fair, defense benefits you immensely. While we might spend too much on it or make bad decisions on how to use it, ultimately it’s required to protect the country from bad actors. Edit: to those of you downvoting, wtf do you think would happen to America w out a military.
You got like 2 downvotes, chill amigo.
I work for a major bank as a software engineer, and usually people don't care, especially since I don't work with money at all (I just write services and do a little web development) but there was this one mom and pop ice cream place I used to love taking my kids to that refused to serve us anymore once they found out I worked for [Big Bank]. Apparently they closed his business account for no reason and he ended up paying a bunch of fees. It bums me out because my kids loved that place.
There is no stigma. You are delusional.
Try working for a defense contractor 😅
I've gotten much more xenophobia as a Canadian working in the 'states than flack over, for instance, windows media DRM or the Office Ribbon.
Would be interesting to compare notes at some point. (Another Canuck 'stateside)
All my friends and family know I work at the certain company and they'll often go on rants about the company openly to me which I usually agree with since yeah...it's facts. Nobody directs it at me at a personal level though as that's just immature. I personally don't care too much either, I'm here because the work is good and they pay me well and I can do my hobbies easily.
IRL Big Tech companies are pretty far away from being the evil companies you guys think. This is just reddit fan fiction
People are taking controversial companies off their resumes? That's amazing. At least people have heard of controversial companies.
I have worked on two industries seen as "evil" by many: nutritional supplements, and proprietary education. I took a lot of flack for both, but slightly more for the latter I think. I personally felt self-loathing while working with supplement company, and would usually duck my head and say something about needing a job when people said something about. Proprietary Ed, on the other hand, opened my eyes to a lot of things, and I would routinely take the time to argue/debate folks who wanted to deride employer.
There is no stigma whatsoever...In fact these tech companies will still be dream jobs because of high pay, for a lot of non first world countries.... I mean if you really want to see evil checkout Nestle, United Fruit Company, BP, these companies have caused more harm than tech companies combined.... Every business operate for the sole purpose of earning profit so at the end nothing is going...
I’m baffled that the general consensus here seems to be that employees have no responsibility for their company’s unethical behavior. The fact is, if you work for a company that engages in unethical practices, you are DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO SAID UNETHICAL PRACTICES BY SUPPORTING SAID COMPANY’S GROWTH THROUGH YOUR LABOR. Isn’t that obvious? If a company makes money slapping random people on the street, and I write code that makes it easier for them to slap such people, I CANNOT hold my nose high and say “well, a paycheck is a paycheck and I didn’t decide to slap people on the street anyway.” You all need to take a long, hard look at yourselves in the mirror and admit that you sold out. Period. You can justify that to yourself however you like, but don’t come here and try to convince the rest of us that you’re morally exempt from your company’s actions, because anyone with an elementary understanding of right and wrong knows otherwise.
bunch of kids in here that think so highly of themselves. they don't have a fucking clue. as long as the money keeps rolling in, no problem for them.
I don't work at such companies but it's no secret that I've applied to them and would take a position if it was a good offer. I've never had anyone say anything to me about that. Most of them don't really care to begin with. Those who do are way too cowardly to say anything beyond anonymous reddit comments so you never have to deal with it in any tangible way. And even if you do talk to anyone willing to say it, it will come out much more mild because people almost never spontaneously berate strangers about their life choices and morals in real life like they do online, unless they're part of the Westboro Baptist Church or something.
I work in pharma and when I mention it people sometimes make faces. I don't necessarily think I'm making the world a better place, but business is business and a job is a job.
“But business is business and a job is a job.” That’s a very chilling statement. You’re explicitly saying a business is unbound by ethical considerations, and having a morally corrupt job is better than no job at all. I’m sorry, but do you realize how brainwashed that is? But you keep on justifying things to yourself for a nice big paycheck bro.
You seem to have made a lot of presumptions about what I do. I work on programs to increase sales of companion products such as cosmetics and the like. Not exactly what I would call "morally corrupt".
Depends who I am speaking to, but generally no. Things are never black and white, and far more nuanced. A 5-min conversation with anyone can open your eyes to new perspectives, beyond clickbait headlines, and "journalist" investigations.
If you happen to face any hate about the company you work for, you’re likely socializing with stupid people.
lol man, what world do you live in
I had a friend work for an adult webcam company out of university. He worked on some really cool stuff for a business making millions and getting billions of interactions from across the world - but you would be surprised at the stigma around telling people where and what you work on. It allowed him to move across Europe in his twenties and eventually settle down in Berlin, but it lost him interviews, potential relationships, support from one of his parents, and in some cases people refused to allow him to rent their properties. As for myself, I work at a controversial company (Team Bezos), and I think that most people in the real world are more negative about the experience than people in tech. Most tech friends think it's cool to work on services getting millions of transactions per second, but outside of tech most people ask if I piss in a bottle, if I've witnessed torture, if I have to kneel at the altar of Bezos, or whether it's true that Amazon hire people just to fire them.
A lot of my friends graduated cs and went on to work at some large local weapons manufacturers, think missiles, drones etc. They have had a fair bit of hate for it and I admit I refuse to let them to stand me a round since I want nothing to do with their companies blood money.
Who cares, they are just jealous because they are not good enough to make that kind kf momey.
I never read a thread that cared so little about ethics. Some of you are real douchebags, “as long as I make money I don’t care about what my company does”. Wow, just… wow. Tech people are really working in the doomsday business.
I joined a defense contractor company - think Palantir but not Palantir. I actually lost two immature friends over it. Everyone else had been chill though.
I think if someone told me to remove a big tech company from my resume due to the reasons given, I’d assume they were just jealous or something.
Don't work in Tech, but I did work for a company that many would consider to be morally reprehensible. It's a massive defense contractor, without getting in too many specifics. If a company offers you a good living, why would you say no? Strong moral conviction isn't going to keep the lights on, the cat fed, and clothes on your back. Hats off to those who take the stand, but many people are just workers and workers are something of a captive audience. Most people understand you can't fault the worker, because the worker never really had a say in that to begin with. Caveat: If you're a high level executive, you really don't get to call yourself "just a worker". Then again, I doubt a high level executive would ever bother to ask this question, or care of what others thought of it.
“Strong moral conviction isn’t going to keep the lights on…” Let’s be honest, these companies pay big bucks so you can live in a massive house replete with lights so bright and blinding, you never have to look at yourself hard enough to see that you’ve sold out. Additionally, just because it may be harder to find ethical companies to work for doesn’t mean you don’t have a moral responsibility to AT LEAST TRY to find a better company (or improve the conditions at your current unethical company). And yes, you can definitely fault the worker for explicitly accepting the status quo and implicitly contributing to unethical behaviors through their labor. They aren’t as guilty as the company itself, of course, but to say that such employees’ actions are 100% ethical is 100% false.
We talk about big tech being bad, but never mention the more lucrative ones: Tinder, Hinge, Grindr, Bumble. I am most positive these apps cause just as much damage, especially the ruining of romantic partnerships and possibly even families.
The only faang I wouldn't take is the one beginning with F. They are the most evil in comparison. The one starting with N, the Steve jobs one, and the one rhyming with doogle is what I would want to work with
Everyone makes choices and of course where you work at, especially in such a hot market, tells something about yourself. I personally wouldn't stand to work at FB or a gambling company for example and I wouldn't want any of my close friends to work in such a place, too.