What makes you still work for Meta, when it's clear how toxic the company is?

5 hours ago

The more I read about Zuckerberg's thoughts on the future of AI, and the more it's unveiled about the shady practices the company has been engaging in for more than a decade, the more I can't find an answer to a simple question: how can so many brilliant, probably ethically sound people, still work for such a company?

I'm focusing on Meta, but the same goes for Palantir and such ilk of companies whose clear and only output is a net negative for society.

Is it really just money? Or do you actually believe these companies are not the societal wrecking balls they are? Would you argue that their toxicity itself is not as evident as I claim? You just don't give a damn?

I understand this is a provocative question, but bear with me and possibly change my mind. I'm genuinely curious.

I know someone (not an engineer) who was applying to jobs for a long time and got a 100% pay increase from moving to Meta, about $60k -> $120k. In such circumstances, it is difficult to turn down such a job. You are only one small part of the machine and it is such a quality of life increase (in USA), I cannot imagine many people saying no.

Some other common reasons that I disagree with, but are quite defensible:

"Well-targeted advertising is a net positive, or at least not hugely negative, for the world. Better targeting has helped many small businesses succeed where they would otherwise not been able to get customers"

"I am working on account security/React/ML/etc which is a good thing. I don't endorse all the bad things"

"It is more complicated than it seems, and most people at Meta try to do the right thing"

"I might as well work at the company and try to make it better from the inside" (while making lots of money)

One of their recruiters, a fellow named Josh, hounded me for months to join Meta, and we went back and forth about the merits, the chance to work on something huge, but when he boiled all down.. it was the money. Meta pays a lot for the people they want, and that just wasn't enough for me.

I think people know they are making the world a worse place. But the salaries are insanely high. It wont change until society frowns upon the job. Also it makes the world worse through second order effects so its easy to not think about it.

At this point meta’s reputation is bad enough that, just by supply and demand, they must be paying a premium for worse performers

This is a virtue signalling post and rightfully flagged. The responses are interesting though.

I feel two quotes from the notebook are particularly relevant:

“…it’s not about following your heart. It’s about security” - Noah, the notebook

“Money! He’s got a lot of money” - Noah, the notebook

Curious, is there a minimum salary for migrant workers in the US? Here in Shanghai if you are a foreigner you can only get a 1 year work-residence permit unless you make x times amount the local minimum wage. Then there are also categories, for A tier talent the minimum is now 800.000 RMB per year iirc (recently adjusted from 880.000, which does not add up, because I got a A tier permit with 650.000 a year two years ago..)

What makes you buy conventional dairy farmed products? It's clear how harmful it's for a well being of cows/calves.

What makes you buy chocolate from giant corps that have slave/child labour in their supply chain?

Not working for any of them but given everything else equal, I'd pick Meta over Palantir under any circumstance, if I were to work for one of them.

  • That's the most American comment. Inventing a 2 party idea when there is none and justify their positions based on that.

  • Sure. Between Meta and DOGE or the ICE, Meta seems the lesser evil. OTOH, why work for someone evil at all? Aren’t enough jobs out there with ethical organisations that prioritise, or otherwise favour, common good?

  • I'm curious, why Palantir as worse? As I understand it they are basically well very built data pipelines + dashboards + marketing. See here for example: https://www.wired.com/story/palantir-what-the-company-does/

    Not try to defending them, but I do believe Meta is doing much more harm, purely based on Instagram for children.

    • Palantir's entire purpose for existence is to implement the Total Information Awareness program that US citizens rejected. They're domestic spies.

      Are they worse than Meta? I don't know, a strong argument can be made that both organizations are very harmful and there's no point in trying to rank which is worse.

There are many places at Meta that seem to be quite interesting for researchers. You get to play with a lot of hardware, with other talented people, and you can open-source some of your work.

It's all a slippery slope anyway. If you were to work for yourself and publish your research, people might do bad things with it anyway. Consider YOLO [1] as an example of where things might have gone wrong. Another fine example is Fritz Haber [2], who intended some of his inventions for good, some for bad, but eventually society found a way to reverse his intentions.

Given that most computer scientists are pretty good at putting things in perspective, they might come to the conclusion that working for Meta isn't so bad in the grander scheme of things. Slaving away in academia and having your work ignored isn't a very tempting alternative.

Instead of considering how we can make smart people stop working for idiots, it might be more fruitful to spread the idea that we should stop worshipping idiots altogether. If there is one thing I miss from the days when religion was still a thing, it is this suggestion [3].

[1] https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/code-no-evil/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber

[3] Exodus 20:3-5

  • It seems like the argument is that doing science/tech-development for an organization which both has and adheres to benevolent intents and goals, or even just going on your own is the same as working for a company that is intending from the onset to use the work malevolently. Because, all tech gets abused eventually.

    This is a terrible argument and is defeatist in the same was as 'what does anything matter at all if the sun is going to explode'.

    If you choose to do work for bad leaders, you are going bad in the same way that 'just following orders' for bad things is also bad. You are responsible for the outcomes in those cases. If you are ok with the resulting bad outcomes because the science was interesting and the pay is good, that's your decision. But there is no absolution just because you can suppose that someone else would have done it so it might as well have been you.

    • > what does anything matter at all if the sun is going to explode

      It would not surprise me if this is the exact reasoning that underpins decisions made by leaders of these big companies.

      It's terribly hard to convince some people that this is not a sound argument.

      In fact, I think it's mostly an evolutionary trait that most of us have, but looking at other species, I don't think it's universal to help others.

  • > If you were to work for yourself and publish your research, people might do bad things with it anyway.

    There's a whole world of difference between someone using your work in a way that you find objectionable and volunteering to accept a paycheck doing work for a company that you know will be using the work they're paying for in a way that you find objectionable.

    This is why I have to assume that anybody working for a company is fine with what that company does.

Back when Meta was still called Facebook, I was in a spot where I had a few offers (including Meta) and the reason why I picked it was the following:

- cool project that is somewhat not related to shady stuff (Oculus)

- cool people I knew there

- I got down-leveled, so money was just a small % bump to my previous salary

I ended up quitting after less than a year due to said toxic culture and a bunch of other reasons.

Meta employees had (has?) this little stat on your profile page that gives you a title based on how long you were there. Staying 4 years gave you the title of "Mercenary". I think it speaks by itself :-)

Honestly speaking, some people actually thrive in the Meta culture and end up making bank with repeated promotions, but they are also clearly able to abstract the ethical side of things to focus on maximizing impact at all cost.

They get this thing called money which allows them to acquire the goods and services needed to remain alive. In the US, they also get the health insurance needed for the decent medical care to remain. Throw in supporting one or dependents needing those things as well, and it’s pretty easy to see why any one individual would remain employed there.

I’ll relay what i’ve been told years ago when moving similar arguments myself:

“If I don’t take that job (and that fat paycheque) then someone else will. Whatever Meta is set to accomplish, irrespective of whether it’s actually evil or not, will most likely be achieved. So might as well take the job and the money. As a bonus, you get to work on interesting stuff rather than the usual CRUD webapp.”

And the sad truth is, they were right.

Not only that, marketing yourself as an ex-FAANG afterwards (whether the faang is meta or whatever) will likely yield better positions or salary anyway. And the experience you get working on larger scale systems (along with much higher quality standards) improves you a lot as an engineer.

So long story short, it’s mostly upsides.

Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

1. Money 2. Most people couldn’t care less

  • There's money elsewhere. The presumption is that "you" are a talented engineer and employable at any number of FAANG companies (or whatever the anagram is these days).

If we're still at Facebook before this you've been brainwashed into so many other bullshit ideas that this AI thing doesn't seem as out of the place.

Their whole idea of the metaverse was purely toxic, so is their idea about social media.

It's wonderful to imagine all the world's employers embodying "Don't Be Evil". And any exceptions being driven out of business by their employees quitting.

At times and in places, many of the young and optimistic have been able to believe that. Or at least to proclaim such beliefs - without immediately being called on it.

But similar to "Santa Clause won't bring presents to naughty boys and girls" - that ain't how the real world actually works. And the usual social convention for those "in the know" to allow young optimists to figure things out for themselves. "Don't spoil their youthful joy, the world is shitty enough as it is." );

If you are truly genuinely curious about your question then you apparently neither realize nor accept the amount of justification the average person will give for money or other personal benefit.

People still work at facebook? Figured they had fired all the humans and zuck just screams into an AI echo chamber.