People on twitter at other $bigtech seem more than happy to bring you all on board but you've been sucking that $270k+ top-end-even-for-FAANG salary with no concern for the ethics or morality of your business for years. This isn't new. I'm less than excited to see Facebook show up on a resume and haven't been for years. Not to mention the people I've interviewed from there seem to get so accustomed to working on Facebook internal tools that aren't in use anywhere else, especially you front end devs (not talking about just react here but the internal ecosystem).
Best of luck to those of you looking to leave. It took THIS much to get you to this point, don't forget that.
There are a LOT of devs not from Facebook that deserve to be hired and given chances in other FAANG businesses. People you actually want to work with who won't contribute to attacks on democracy for a high salary and have refused to even respond to Facebook recruiters for the last 3-10 years.
Hire them instead. Especially you Google employees who are on twitter ranting and raving right now. There's a huge amount of people who want to work with you who haven't traded their ethics for a paycheck and were laid off over the last few months. Yet you're trying to bring these Facebook employees under your umbrella? How about you help bring some other people up?
It's just shocking how out of touch you SV FAANG types are. I'm glad you're actually tweeting about important things this weekend, though.
I went to university in Texas and so many people went to work in the Oil industry and even with an awareness of climate change issues, whenever I questioned them the answer was "Oil is a critical part of our energy infrastructure and someone will need to figure out how to get it out of the ground."
It was fair reasoning but I always thought "you are a bright engineer, you don't have to be the person figuring this out, you could be taking your skills elsewhere and hopefully the oil industry will have to settle for worse talent."
Yes, Facebook is valuable in many ways to people but do you, personally, need to be the person aiding the mining of information? If you are upset about the deleterious effects of Social why don't you work for Netflix? Or any of the other similarly compensated companies. You don't have to work for a 'social good' company but there are absolutely well paying companies out there with a neutral effect on society. Working at let's say Stitchfix or Salesforce or Microsoft doesn't make you a martyr but shit, at least it's not Facebook!
I don't think my friends are evil for working in oil but I think there are alternatives to do less evil in the world. That same MechE working on oil could find just as challenging work elsewhere. If you are a talented ChemE how about working on batteries or pharmaceuticals (even tho that industry is shitty for other reasons, the output at least helps people stay alive.)
LOL that's so me; I am not perfect. My partner went vegan a few years ago while she was eating a filet mignon at our anniversary dinner and just said "I'm not eating meat anymore."
I don't eat meat at home now but I definitely get it when I'm out at a restaurant. Eeek. Occasionally she gets all 'cmon man' but usually it's OK.
That sounds unfair. Of course you very accustomed to working with tools you work with every day, especially if they're good. You'll also never find a 1:1 match between companies though and not-bad people can switch between systems as needed. Unless you need an intermediate level boilerplate writer ready to go with tech X and Y from day 1, it should be fine.
Why not say: These are people experienced with systems that work well. Maybe they can bring those workflows over and improve the company when they come here.
The post was much shorter when I responded and the technical bit was a more significant part of it. I totally get the other points, but they stand on their own.
Quit men quit. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.
If you are a Facebook/WhatsApp/Instagram employee, you must know by now that these companies won't change by inside forces. If you work in these companies, you are an accomplice of everything of bad that is happening in the world: from climate change apologists, the destruction of Amazon by Brazil's government, the killing of black people by American police.
If their morals are incompatible with yours, then its fair game to pass judgement on them and not hire them or urge others (who have to make their own moral decision on it) not to (or as the commentor is stating: to consider hiring others first). Nobody has to follow what this commentor is saying, if they disagree.
Personally, I question people’s moral judgement if they work for a company I deem evil and will dissassociate with them. Why wouldn’t I? Others with different values can do differently.
It’s really quite something to watch how quickly the self righteous vilify and stereotype entire swaths of people. Exactly the type of behavior they apparently abhor.
No, not at all. Don’t get me wrong, I myself would not work at Facebook because of my _own_ morals. But I draw a line between what I believe in and how I project those beliefs onto others.
If there’s a thing I’ve learned in life is that reality is extremely nuanced and passing blanket judgements like the above is almost always bound to be wrong.
See my other reply on this same thread. I would never work for Philip Morris in the same way I would never work for FB.
This mentality is extremely dangerous because it cuts both ways: imagine companies discriminating against employees because they believe abortion is a right, or because they are strong 2A supporters or detractors.
If we go down this path, we _all_ end up losers. Attacking the employees is really not the way to go, in the end, they are the ones with the least leverage to influence anything.
Do you believe you don't need to compromise morals to work at Google? They're not the most wholesome of companies. You pretty much need to compromise some morals to work just about anywhere. Just Facebook stands out as being more than most places in this regard.
Your rant is unhelpful and applies broad stereotypes and assumptions to a lot of people. You also strongly imply you've never worked at a SV company, so you don't even have first hand experience here.
The issue aside, you’re simply chastising a straw man that you’ve constructed by assuming the worst possible interpretation of every aspect of your opponent’s position, seemingly without ever having spoken to one of them. This is not an effective way to communicate.
It’s just sanctimonious grandstanding. This is how you get lots of internet points while even further exacerbating the very same problem you’re railing against.
And that’s coming from someone who agrees with you.
By rightousness I mean a zealous belief that you are right and those who disagree are wrong. There isn't any correctness or incorrect implication with righteousness: it can power civil rights movements and the reign of terror all the same.
In this particular instance though, I am implying that OPs righteousness, devoid of nuance and juvenile in its simplicity, is indeed wrong. And I wouldn't work at an organization whose staff was curated by such a faulty logic.
I'm not FAANG just a concerned contributor who gets to work with them daily and was watching this unfold while getting tear gassed standing in drum circles this weekend.
Unless this is about G attacking FBers, yeah, that has been fun to watch. As usual the FB'ers are pretty silent about everything. Couple of "hi i work for fb and want to leave what should i do" posts but that was all I really saw.
I'm concerned for someone who has so much wrongly placed anger... dude you're all worked up about Facebook for no reason, get real they aren't the enemy
I just threw an off the wall mention that I was out protesting and getting tear gas shot at me this weekend and you're commenting that my anger toward FB is misplaced?
Yeah me too because unless mark Zuckerberg shot tear gas at you I still don't get it. You just sound really mad at FB and silicon valley for no good reason
> You just sound really mad at FB and silicon valley for no good reason
As a reader of Hacker News, it'd be quite hard to imagine you don't have at least have an understanding of some reasons to dislike Facebook or Silicon Valley. Not agreement, but at least an understanding. Every week it seems there is something posted for both topics...
Of course I see comments and articles about it all the time, I do not understand it and think they are totally wrong. Like I said no good reason that I have seen
The funny thing is Twitter gets roasted for taking the opposite stance... There's no winning
Then you also know a good deal of people disagree with you, so what you see as wrong likely doesn't match the poster. So what's the point of going in this loop of useless comments?
The only person making useless posts here is you... I responded to this person directly to comment on their post and state my opinion, who TF are you? Did you actually just make a comment to say stop posting in aloop and add nothing to the convo? Do you see how ironically stupid that is?
Is this sarcasm or are you really going to make a list? Might as well put literally every single company on there, because if you look hard enough there will be something someone is upset about.
It's not that it's crazy - it's an effective way to accomplish your goals. They're just very toxic and socially harmful goals. It's a huge problem if the industry ends up partitioned into Democratic Tech and Republican Tech.
> Imagine discriminating based upon the employees work history. Who the fuck are you, mate?
Last I checked that's time and time again what companies hire on based on every study, lol.
Your issue seems to not be at all with prior work history, but hiring based on ethics. Given how much that is applied to arguments here on HN that are relevant to technical work, that seems at the very least like a valid factor that can absolutely effect work.
As to your example, the big difference here is that you jumped to a conclusion about the person's activities that doesn't seem very reasonable to assume based on their employment history. The parent went company worked at -> tacit acceptance of their actions as a company (again, there's nuance here that should always be explored) -> possible negative effects on future job.
The idea that this doesn't happen is a bit laughable. Of course the choices you make of employer matter. They've always mattered, and they will continue to matter, because they represent exactly what your values are worth to you.
> Imagine discriminating based upon the employees work history.
Seriously? That's pretty much the whole point of a resume, for an employer to discriminate based on work and education history.
It sounds weird when said in a negative way, but it makes all the sense in the world when you think of it "positively", like "of course companies should prefer to hire someone that worked at a top company or graduated from a top school".
Agreed. I think the larger issue is the hypocrisy.
I think it’s totally possible Facebook can have been censoring things that don’t break their TOS for years, individuality at FB can be punished in favor of groupthink so attacking them for company actions isn’t right, I also don’t need to like FB in any way. The world is grey.
This is exactly my point, clearly this is an instance of the algorithm innacurately censoring content. A bunch of things get swept up when you have to provide general guidelines for what to censor. And so you want them to censor more? And get even more wrong?
Or do you think that Nudity should just be prohibited and Facebook should be 4chan? Or maybe Facebook should hire 20 million people to decide picture by picture which ones are OK?
For the scale that Facebook is at, they do an amazing job of keeping the peace.
I want to point out there's a big difference between judging people without nuance and what the parent post says. To me it seems you read a lot in between the lines on the post above which I didn't get nearly the same reading on. I took it simply as "I see Facebook on a resume, it's not a full positive for me like many may see it in the tech world" and would be a possible ethical red flag.
I feel the same at a personal level and Facebook is far from the only company on my mental list there, but with any of these it is not a categorical judgement or an immediate eliminator of someone in any situation.
I really didn't mean "I see FB I toss resume" or anything. In fact I have a huge desire to see people leave FB as well. I've worked for places I disagreed with completely but had to make a paycheck and that is soul crushing.
But they're fine right now. And my twitter is full of people who have been laid off recently and NEED gainful employment. If unemployment were where it was 3 months ago I wouldn't have said a word, especially not this firebrand.
The comment is somewhat coherent in the first line. I'm not sure what happened after that. Nor am I sure why he wrote "You are someone I wouldn't hire" as if such a topic would come up during the interviewing process.
I'm really reaching to understand how you could interpret my comment that way. I'm equating judging large swaths of people in the way the parent does as equivalent to society assuming black people "deserve" what they get.
Translation: "If you don't agree with my moral notions of the correct balance between censorship v. expression, and various other complex nuanced philosophical notions, I'm going to insult you and hope that you never find a job again."
Spoken like a lover of freedom and someone who should be upvoted to the top comment.
I have no idea whether OP would be fired if they mention where they work. While through context I'd infer that they're interviewing people on behalf of an established tech company, it's also possible that they're running a small consulting business or something, such that publicly commenting on controversial topics wouldn't affect their relationship with their employer.
Either way, saying that FB is bad and their devs are immoral and you would prefer not to hire them because they demonstrate their lack of backbone by not standing up to Zuck is a pretty ironic thing to be posting anonymously.
I don’t know if it would be that effective- it’s clear this persons post is currently in the positive. It’s highly likely there are other people in positions where they can hire others who have contributed to keeping the position in the positive score range (or at least not so negative that you have to highlight it to see it). By making it more broad we can assume that a silent chunk of people upvoting it agree for their own companies and positions of power too, and those we can’t pull aside to ask who they work for.
The intention of this post isn't to "hit hard" it's just to remind people who may have forgotten and are in positions of hiring power that there are a lot of people (devs/non-devs) unemployed or furloughed right now through no fault of their own that should be considered before throwing FB employees, who are some of the highest paid in the valley, parachutes.
Best of luck to those of you looking to leave. It took THIS much to get you to this point, don't forget that.
There are a LOT of devs not from Facebook that deserve to be hired and given chances in other FAANG businesses. People you actually want to work with who won't contribute to attacks on democracy for a high salary and have refused to even respond to Facebook recruiters for the last 3-10 years.
Hire them instead. Especially you Google employees who are on twitter ranting and raving right now. There's a huge amount of people who want to work with you who haven't traded their ethics for a paycheck and were laid off over the last few months. Yet you're trying to bring these Facebook employees under your umbrella? How about you help bring some other people up?
It's just shocking how out of touch you SV FAANG types are. I'm glad you're actually tweeting about important things this weekend, though.