The fuck are you getting that from? I didn’t talk about wealth, nor happiness, nor ego and status, nor how any of those things justify working for a horrifyingly evil company.
I talked about a dignified livelihood. You know, being able to pay rent, utilities, groceries, gas and put a little aside so medical emergencies or unexpected expenses don’t trap you in irrecoverable debt.
Is your argument “People should rather starve”? Is the only ethical existence one outside of exploitative, fucked up systems?
I’m sure that many are indeed there because of the money. My argument is that condemning the employees wholesale is likely to catch people that don’t deserve this vilification. My suggestion is to direct that rage against the fucked-up system that both enables exploitative dependencies on employment and allows companies like Meta to exist in the first place.
You think the choices are work for Meta or starve? Its Raytheon or be homeless?
Fuck out of here with that nonsense. If you trade morals for money, dont be surprised when people call you out as morally bankrupt. Isn’t that the trade that was made? Grow up and own your shit.
You think the choices are work for Meta or starve?
To the same degree that a livelihood equals wealth: Not really, but it seems like nuance is out of stock anyway. If we can only talk in absolutes, then sure, let’s go with that.
I don’t know the job situation wherever these employees live. You take for granted that there are plenty of jobs available, but given the current tide of layoffs and hiring stops, I’m not so confident.
I know people (my wife, some family, some close friends; some EU, some US; some tech, some other sectors) struggling to find a job, for all their credentials, because all their applications to just about any vaguely applicable position within the area they can reach are rejected (and for some of them, there are few positions to begin with). If they got a job anywhere that would pay them a living wage, they could hardly afford to turn it down.
It’s even worse in the US, where healthcare may be tied to your employer. One (western US) friend with chronic health issues had to stick with a toxic job for way too long because they genuinely couldn’t afford to quit. Hence, my point is that there’s a very real chance that some employees are trapped in their job, however gilded the cage may be.
Many employees may have the luxury of choice and choose money over morals, true. For some, the choice may have been a question of stability. If there was a reliable social security system to catch anyone that quits, I’d even agree that they all had the choice.
But as things are, I worry that painting all employees the same brush erases nuance and covers up the ugly systemic issues that enable the exploitation of users and employees alike, which we justly hate Meta for.
But then, I guess nuanced looks at contributing factors are hard and calling people morally bankrupt is more satisfying than acknowledging the morally expensive system that bankrupts people in the first place, morally and financially.
There is nuance, but some companies are far past that. Meta is one of them. Theres a bunch of other examples. I dont think walmart employees are morally bankrupt, however, because the Walton’s are. There has to be a line somewhere and some companies have caused too much harm on too large a scale.
There is nuance, but some companies are far past that.
The nuance isn’t about the fucked-upness of the company, but about the humans. The company is beyond redemption, no doubt.
There has to be a line somewhere
Why? Why should we decide a point at which it’s okay to dehumanise people? What do we gain by simplifying economic and social complexities down to “they’re all just evil”?
Again, I care about fixing the system that allows things like Meta to exist (because cutting one head won’t kill the hydra) and trap employees (Meta and elsewhere) in fucked up dynamics where “just leave” isn’t a viable option.
If your necessities are taken care of either way and the choice is purely between excess wealth and ethical responsibility, sure, anyone who chooses to enrich themselves at the expense of others is a dick. If the company is torn down and they lose their job, no tear will be shed. But that basic security needs to exist in order to enable ethical decisions and put the onus on the employees for continuing to support a fucked up stain on human dignity.
The fuck are you getting that from? I didn’t talk about wealth, nor happiness, nor ego and status, nor how any of those things justify working for a horrifyingly evil company.
I talked about a dignified livelihood. You know, being able to pay rent, utilities, groceries, gas and put a little aside so medical emergencies or unexpected expenses don’t trap you in irrecoverable debt.
Is your argument “People should rather starve”? Is the only ethical existence one outside of exploitative, fucked up systems?
I’m sure that many are indeed there because of the money. My argument is that condemning the employees wholesale is likely to catch people that don’t deserve this vilification. My suggestion is to direct that rage against the fucked-up system that both enables exploitative dependencies on employment and allows companies like Meta to exist in the first place.
You think the choices are work for Meta or starve? Its Raytheon or be homeless?
Fuck out of here with that nonsense. If you trade morals for money, dont be surprised when people call you out as morally bankrupt. Isn’t that the trade that was made? Grow up and own your shit.
To the same degree that a livelihood equals wealth: Not really, but it seems like nuance is out of stock anyway. If we can only talk in absolutes, then sure, let’s go with that.
I don’t know the job situation wherever these employees live. You take for granted that there are plenty of jobs available, but given the current tide of layoffs and hiring stops, I’m not so confident.
I know people (my wife, some family, some close friends; some EU, some US; some tech, some other sectors) struggling to find a job, for all their credentials, because all their applications to just about any vaguely applicable position within the area they can reach are rejected (and for some of them, there are few positions to begin with). If they got a job anywhere that would pay them a living wage, they could hardly afford to turn it down.
It’s even worse in the US, where healthcare may be tied to your employer. One (western US) friend with chronic health issues had to stick with a toxic job for way too long because they genuinely couldn’t afford to quit. Hence, my point is that there’s a very real chance that some employees are trapped in their job, however gilded the cage may be.
Many employees may have the luxury of choice and choose money over morals, true. For some, the choice may have been a question of stability. If there was a reliable social security system to catch anyone that quits, I’d even agree that they all had the choice.
But as things are, I worry that painting all employees the same brush erases nuance and covers up the ugly systemic issues that enable the exploitation of users and employees alike, which we justly hate Meta for.
But then, I guess nuanced looks at contributing factors are hard and calling people morally bankrupt is more satisfying than acknowledging the morally expensive system that bankrupts people in the first place, morally and financially.
There is nuance, but some companies are far past that. Meta is one of them. Theres a bunch of other examples. I dont think walmart employees are morally bankrupt, however, because the Walton’s are. There has to be a line somewhere and some companies have caused too much harm on too large a scale.
The nuance isn’t about the fucked-upness of the company, but about the humans. The company is beyond redemption, no doubt.
Why? Why should we decide a point at which it’s okay to dehumanise people? What do we gain by simplifying economic and social complexities down to “they’re all just evil”?
Again, I care about fixing the system that allows things like Meta to exist (because cutting one head won’t kill the hydra) and trap employees (Meta and elsewhere) in fucked up dynamics where “just leave” isn’t a viable option.
If your necessities are taken care of either way and the choice is purely between excess wealth and ethical responsibility, sure, anyone who chooses to enrich themselves at the expense of others is a dick. If the company is torn down and they lose their job, no tear will be shed. But that basic security needs to exist in order to enable ethical decisions and put the onus on the employees for continuing to support a fucked up stain on human dignity.