Item — HN Reader

I have a serious question to anyone working at Meta and reading this: HOW can you still work at this company!?

Why don't you quit this very toxic company, and start working at another place or even on your own? I genuinely don't understand...

Let just Meta die!

30 comments

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

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

I am very very sad reading that, indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is forcing people to use Facebook?

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

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

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

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

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

There is no limit to human greed

There are tons of good reasons to work for Meta. You can work on interesting projects, build your resume and network, work on interesting engineering problems, learn from other people, and of course, they pay very well. People do need to support their family, secure their retirement and so on...

Is it perfect? certainly not. Is the company toxic? where do you draw the line? how much are you willing to compromise given the other advantages you get? Everybody has a different answer to these questions. Some people would tell you that even working in tech is wrong due to environmental concerns.

Personally, I would happily work for Meta. Many people use their services and like them. Is it the greatest thing for society? probably not, but neither is Netflix or Amazon or Apple...

Meta is straight evil. It undermines the institutions of democracy and it negatively impacts its users mental health, all in service of selling your data to advertisers so they can better goad unnecessary consumption.

If I learn you work at Meta, I will judge you as at best lacking a moral compass and treat you appropriately.

Apple has problems, but is a lot closer to morally neutral. Ditto for Netflix.

Amazon has hollowed out local retail/is also bad for society, though not on Meta’s scale. But you sell your soul more cheaply there.

Hey, at least you're open and honest about being okay with contributing to such a global net negative as long as you get something out of it.

This an ad company that proveably, willingly targeted insecure children. You could write the same things about Northrop Grumman or Palantir. I mean corporations were never angels, but how software engineers can work anywhere else with similar features... just why.

Growing up, I’d wonder how people could work for companies like cigarette manufacturers even after it became well known that their products wreck havoc on your health.

This comment is a masterclass in the type of mental gymnastics people do to justify working for these kind of companies.

> Is the company toxic? where do you draw the line?

You couldn’t even answer the question you yourself posed.

Putting Meta next to Netflix in terms of moral culpability is in my opinion laughable.

I don't disagree that there are reasons people compromise on things like the morality of their employer - tale as old as society itself. I do disagree that many people like Meta's services - the only things I have seen people like about Meta is Facebook Marketplace (which is really just Craig's List or eBay if you are looking at technical problems) or the Meta Quest VR (which they've since gutted employment wise since the metaverse debacle).

Not only is it a morally bad employer, but it's also not a very good employer overall. They've just got institutional inertia keeping them entrenched, and are trying to buy their way into AI dominance to boot.

It's hard to imagine a tech company with more clear disdain for their employees than Meta. To me, that seems like a recipe for a dead company, but by all means, build your resume and network.

*Edit: people also use Instagram, but the engineering problems with that are also found in newer social networks like Bluesky, with a little less engagement addiction focus.

People always answer this question with money. But if we think of it as a version of the prisoner dilemma (Meta is one prisoner, the employee is the other), the right move is probably to work somewhere else for a lower salary. By working for Meta, they are defecting against you (openly screen recording you to train your AI replacement). Choosing to work somewhere else would be like you defecting against Meta.

Extremely simplified example. Ignore inflation, raises, etc.

Which choice is better?

- $400k/yr for 5 years followed by a layoff, with the possibility that the thing you've helped Meta build rolls out everywhere, and there are next to no job opportunities

- $200k/yr for the rest of your career, and employment opportunities don't dry up because you didn't help build the thing meant to replace you

After 5 years, you'll have an extra $1M in savings, and you can safely pay yourself 4% or $40k each year in perpetuity without doing any work.

This is also a really extreme version of the prisoners dilemma. In the standard formula, there are 2 prisoners, so it's somewhat practical to not defect, but there are hundreds of thousands of qualified candidates for working at Meta in these roles, so your personal decision to defect or not has likely no effect on the ultimate outcome. I.e. for the second option to work, you actually need to organize a unified labor movement with no defectors, which is probably impossible.

Those are easy choices, but unrealistic. Its also not like offer packages are a click away from showing into your email inbox, they are excruciating and highly random.

More realistic choices are: - $400k/yr for 5 years followed by a layoff, with the possibility that the thing you've helped Meta build rolls out everywhere, and there are next to no job opportunities

- 150k/year for 3 years followed by being laid off due to runway ending, Meta out-competing your company, or whatever. Despite you not helping build the thing meant to replace you, it still got built.

This is a tough one because I've been there. I have worked for orgs that don't align with my values, but when you're in there you aren't thinking that you are contributing to the absolutely horrible crap they're doing. You just keep telling yourself, "I just do this one little thing." And that's enough to convince yourself that it's ok. You're keeping your values and morals intact.

Saying that, I'm sure if more of them had options they'd jump in a heartbeat.

Gavin Belson:

The Scene: Gavin’s development team complains that his new tech ("The Box") is antiquated. He fires back in frustration: "Why did you all take my money then, you entitled little pricks? You all think you’re John Lennon until someone waves a dollar in your face!"

Spy camera manufacturer workers complaining about office cameras....

One thing I have observed so far in SV (haven't been here long) is that folks who work in big tech but aren't from the US don't fully understand the difference in costs depending where you live in the US. I have to wonder if that informs the decision to stay in SV no matter what the work is.

Like, intellectually they know that it costs less to live in Beaverton Michigan than it costs to live in Palo Alto. But the magnitude of that difference, and how that scales your income needs, they've never thought to do the math. It doesn't scale proportionally, and that's counterintuitive.

This isn't a dig against anyone, and exceptions abound. But when I told my foreign-born SV-lifer colleagues how much my rent was in Wisconsin, you'd have thought I was the one from a foreign country!

Post some links to companies hiring at similar compensation levels. Or, are you suggesting that every Meta employee is in a position to just like off of any random job they can find, or even no income at all while they go off "on their own"?

Median pay at Meta is $380k. Median. I'm sure it's high variance but I would put up with a lot for that kind of money

I think this is a unrealistic point of view. If Meta really were as draconian and toxic as many people make it seem, most smart people would have left. Market is tough right now, but then there were other times when jobs were booming. And people still joined Meta. Money is one big aspect.

I am not saying Meta is a paradise. I completely want Meta to face their reckoning for what they have done to the world, but painting it as like a prison camp is misplaced I feel.

It's because it's a job that is known to pay very well, I don't know what's so difficult to understand about it? Like someone is just going to give up their $300K - $500K job over something like that; the kind of thing they'll put hand over heart and claim they'll do in posts like this one, but in practice people won't actually do, because the money is good.

I work at Meta, on a key system in one of the main products.

I think when I went in, it was too interesting a system/opportunity to not do it. I was open to many roles and interviewing, and I just really wanted to understand how it works.

I don't touch ads, I don't touch integrity, or any of the "dodgy" stuff. I used to hate Facebook (and then Meta), and not have accounts on any of their platforms (bar Whatsapp), until I joined. I care about doing good and making a positive impact in the world (don't think I'll do much at Meta though). I'm probably the closest to a 180 on this you can imagine.

And... I don't have a good answer to why I still work there? It's an interesting anthropological exercise? My everyday is working with great people on a facet of a product that is entirely wholesome and inoffensive? When I came in, I found that my coworkers (locally, in my team/sister teams) were extremely talented, hard working, and cared a lot about the systems being good. Yes we are all pissed off by the recent changes, a couple people left (not mainly due to these changes though). I mean, the people just seem entirely normal? I don't imagine it's so different to working elsewhere. People are not obsessed with money or in any kind of dire situation, they are not grappling with hard moral questions about the value of money versus corrupting the world.

I guess I just feel like I'm not contributing to the awful stuff? I think you tend to get used to your everyday life and see the stuff around you in your little bubble. I guess if my part of the product gets better, Meta sells more ads and then has an incentive to do bad stuff, I suppose?

Anyway, yeah. Open to other convincing opinions about why I should feel awful for what I do and quit my job, and the right way to think about this (genuinely!).

Have you tried finding a new job recently?

In the US, if you quit your job, you lose access to many benefits, including affordable health care. It might be hard to get a loan for a car, to find an apartment, etc. This is systemically set up this way, including making sure employment doesn't get too low, which would give more power to employees.

$$$,$$$

If you can hang, it pays great. I don't work there but I know some who do.

The kind of issues that you might face if you have dependants could be something along the lines: well Timmy, we'll need to cut your leg instead of trying solution x that might save it, because I preferred not to accept a job that would have allowed to pay for that, due to the fact such a job didn't follow my ethical standards.

This is of course a very extreme and hopefully rare case, but I think that there's a large range of cases where unfortunately money does make a difference I a significant way. Additionally, I think that it also does make a huge difference if you are the only one affected by you decisions or someone else is.

I think when going for a decision for such a position, these and other points that consider the more practical implications might weight in.

Money. Even I would put up with this if they paid me enough.

Meta is still better than 80% of the companies. Other company spies on you, do micromanagement and still pay way less.

Pick your poison.

Imposter syndrome is extremely common and a lot of people in high-paying tech jobs don't believe they can get something just like this elsewhere.

Also, Meta interviews are generally not regarded as too difficult, which further fuels the imposter syndrome (everyone has a sense that they're overpaid considering how easy it is to get in). I almost suspect this is a deliberate strategy.

In the end, most people choose money.

This seems like rhetorical question where you know the answer.

Despite corporate propaganda, work is not self-fulfillment, moral quest, or meaning for most people. It's money and future. When you earn $191K-$4.36M+ and don't want to move your family to some cheaper neighborhood, you put your head down and keep working.

Unless you are hardcore libertarian, these questions of workplace privacy are solved individual by individual. They are political questions. Improve labor laws, privacy laws etc.

Company devices are always tracked 100% of the time.

I don't understand why this is news.

Maybe you should be asking that question on 1.3 acres and not here

Which non profit do _you_ work for?

Money and/or visa sponsorship obviously. Some things are more important than internet cool points.

I would take a fat raise to work on some dumb tracking feature that probably won't make it to production. It's a huge bureaucracy, most people probably coast (as shown in HBO's Silicon Valley) and do very little actual work.

Well I used to be pretty passionate about the work I was doing, and especially because I was learning from some incredible people.

....but both of those are gone to layoffs and restructuring, so it's basically just money, and I'm hanging on by an actively fraying thread of cowardice and burnout.

You need to be more cruel if you actually want these people to quit.

Make them fear for their professional and personal reputations.

Make them embarassed to show their face or state their place of employment.

We need to treat these people like Nazis.

> I genuinely don't understand...

Really? Its quite obvious to me. They get astonishing resume and salary. That is until they get fired or burned.