All my acquaintances working in tech, which includes people from very wide sociodemographics ranges, consider Facebook an absolutely prestigious employer, with top talent, top challenges, top compensation and top name for building a personal brand.

Hell, I interviewed at FB about a year ago and was _thrilled_ to get an offer (which I ultimately didn't accept for other reasons) and I loved the technical challenges that they are working and how they are advancing the state of the art on some really cool scalability problems.

I'll be downvoted, but when it comes to Facebook, HN is a broken record.

A lot of us software engineering types lack integrity and are perfectly happy to work on socially harmful projects as long as the pay's right and there's opportunity to grow one's skills.

This is pretty insulting, working at Facebook doesn't necessarily mean you don't have integrity. The majority of the company is engaged in development efforts that aren't related to the odious part of the business to do with brokering personal data.

Additionally, I'm sure Facebook would move away from that if there was a viable way to get people to pay directly for social media. It's not like they're selling data because they're moustache twirling villains, they're doing it because it's the only business model anyone can make work for social media.

Further, it's interesting how Google is in exactly the same business at Facebook, yet receives a small fraction of public hatred for it.

Would you justify working for the Nazis if it was on open source libraries to better enable tracking people?

Thats the most typical HN look at it

Firstly, only in the past year have Google's or Facebook's reputations taken a turn for the worse. There are critics but there are many more cheerleaders, excuse-finders and whataboutists.

Secondly, this is not an HN bubble thing. Major publications in both the EU and US have written about the damage companies like Google and Facebook do to democracy, society and individuals. And even if it were an HN bubble, it's about time HN woke up to the malignancy of these corporations.

The top 5 rockstars % (the ones they really want to attract with big money) are the ones taking all decisions.

But seriously, while they probably are prestigious and cool right now, I do feel that there's enough hostility towards FB in the hacker community (and thus their supply of employees) that it might start forcing them to hire average-at-best engineers.

Anecdotally, I’m helping several friends, who are each exceptionally capable, employed at Facebook with new jobs. They reached out before this revelation, to their credit, though this threw fuel on the fire. I suspect Facebook will be known for having hired mediocre sell-outs a few years from now.

> I trade private equity stakes in technology companies. Former aerospace investment banker and before that, algorithmic equity derivatives trader.

You're also the one who submitted this article. Somehow I doubt you are actually helping friends at FB find new jobs. I think it's much more likely that you are short FB. There's a lot of your type out there spreading articles like this as much as possible.

Maybe you should spend some time thinking about what contributions you investment banker types are making to society, if there is any. Good riddance...

Your last submission was titled "We're lucky Mark Zuckerberg is in charge" and around half your comment history is devoted to defending Facebook. At least if you're going to question someones motives, you should state yours.

I think it's pretty reasonable to assume an investment banker isn't going to be much help to FB employees in finding a new job. Claiming that "Facebook will be known for having hired mediocre sell-outs a few years from now." is at best a baseless slander. How in the world is that not in bad faith?

Spreading misinformation to aid one's short position is a much worse case of bias, in my mind, than what I've said in defense of the company.

2. The "slander" was supported by an anecdote. And this is a comment section -- opinionated statements will be found.

3. What might be closer to slander is the fantastic assumption that the other commenter is shilling for a short position in Facebook. That's a mind-boggling assumption to make on the flimsiest of evidence. Even setting aside that trying to promote your short in a random HN comment is laughable

4. You're curiously silent on your own bias, well noted by pantaloons

I think the idea that everyone at FB who doesn't leave immediately is a "mediocre sell-out" is very far from the truth, and contrary to my own experience. Thus I'm suspicious of people who claim such.

There's already enough people on HN that will type out a borderline vitriolic four point list of why anyone who defends FB is wrong.

Why don't you look at JumpCrisscross' post history? This isn't the only anti-FB article he's submitted. Or are you a bit biased here? :) He has even commented on FB's stock price and predicted it will go down more in the future.

My bias is that I think there's another side to the story.

You are so self-assured about your position that you immediately take the contrary assertion to be in _bad faith_? This seems silly to me, but perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree.

I did.

> it's much more likely that you are short FB

I don’t own a single share, nor am I short a single share, of any public company. I play in private companies’ equities and debts. That’s my day job, and it (along with super-safe bonds) are where I put my money. You may be confusing bankers with fund managers.

> you should spend some time thinking about what contributions you investment banker types are making to society

I think about this frequently. Many bankers waste their oxygen. But I don’t think I do.

At best, someone at Facebook might do something I strive to—help bring something new to the world that is good and wouldn’t have otherwise existed. At worst, I lose money. (Never fun, but by legal requirement I can only lose the money of those with very much of it.) At worst, Facebook prompts violent atrocities.

But that's absolutely not reason enough to blatantly impugn someone's motives, and suggest outright that they are doing something illegal.

Here for a preview of something that is completely led by Facebook due to their scalability needs, and that most small/mid/large employers would never have the resources to fund, or the need to pursue: https://code.fb.com/open-source/linux/

All these projects have had major contributions during 2018, so not everything has been "figured out" yet.

Of course they do. I too, when in polite professional company, don't rip into facebook and make myself look like the tinfoil hat nutter.

Joining these companies in the right teams is literally what makes it possible to have an exciting technical career AND the guarantee of being able to retire (or more generally, gain financial freedom) in your early/mid 40s, if one decides to stay on an individual contributor technical track. Seriously, it's the only decision that makes sense if one has the chops to get into one of those places. Always pay yourself first, with interesting works that keeps you marketable and with liquid cash to put into your retirement savings!

I would have jumped ship myself but, as I said in a few other previous comments, I had crazy luck to join a "very mediocre" startup who is growing a lot, so my appreciated equity prevents me from leaving, otherwise I'd for sure be in FB right now, since the offer they extended me was very generous and the specific work was something I wouldn't be able to do anywhere else.

A close friend of mine was hired for their network traffic team a few months ago. I spoke to him recently and he said: "boy, I thought I knew many things about handling large traffic at scale, but the things I'm seeing here are simply unprecedented". So, to all the people who say FB will go down in history for hiring mediocre people, please recognize how ridiculous your statements are.

For you, sure.

There are better ways I can think of spending my 20s and 30s than just setting up for retirement in my 40s, because when you're in your 40s, you're not in your 20s or 30s anymore.

- It allowed me to immigrate to the US and become a citizen in 8 years, coming from a poor European country, thanks to my engineering background I obtained by getting a BS + MS in computer engineering while other acquaintances were going down an easier path (e.g. "I don't want to waste my early 20s studying").

- It allowed me to live in San Francisco, an absolutely amazing city where I am having the time of my life, cultivating relationships with my diverse group of friends, exploring nature, ...

- It allowed me to work on very interesting projects and technical work.

- It allowed me to travel without worrying about budgeting, I take a month of international travel every year and in between jobs I took a 4 months break to explore more deeply SE Asia.

- All that hard work allowed me to be incredibly well compensated, and in my very early 30s my liquid net worth is in the 7 figures now (started from exactly 0 out of school), which gives me an immense freedom for the rest of my life.

So, I didn't "_just_ set up for retirement", and had I been in FAANG I would have likely done exactly the same (since that's what my friends working there do), just being paid more so right now my net worth would be even higher.

I'll certainly agree to disagree since my statement was perhaps too strong, but I just wanted to bring the perspective that one can work hard with an early retirement goal without giving up on the things that one could "otherwise enjoy" if pursuing a different goal.

Microsoft is known for paying less and being too big and too political to the point where making an impact is really difficult.

Mind you, this is on average: there are stellar teams at both of those companies that work on incredible stuff, and I would consider an honor and privilege to be in that situation, if the opportunity was given to me. Likewise, there are many teams in Google maintaining internal legacy applications with no challenges to solve, and you would have to pay me 7 figures to force me to work on those.

I personally couldn't get into Facebook or Google. What does that make me?

Once again, this is on average, it depends on the specific team. There are insanely talented people at both MS and Amazon!

As far as you not getting accepted, not passing an interview there doesn’t mean you are not talented, but passing the interview very likely means you are talented, and for them this high false negative rate is good enough at this time.

I’ve been lucky enough to get offers at Google, Netflix and Facebook and the interviews were definitely hard, I can’t imagine a weak candidate passing those interviews by mistake, but I can very well imagine a smart candidate not passing them. Preparation is key: I played the game for a few months and prepared according to their interview style. It’s tedious and time consuming work.

I don't apparently

> I conclude those engineers have less prestige until they stay with those employers

Well, I appreciate your honesty - when I tell most people about how I make ~$150k at one of those companies they usually claim they don't look down on me when I've always maintained they secretly do. Thanks for clearing it up.

I hope my life isn't forever ruined by my inability to get into FB/G/top startups out of undergrad. I prepared for years but never got past the onsites. Hopefully someday I'll be able to gain the respect of people like you.

If I have the choice between working for Palantir or Facebook, I choose Facebook. If have to choose to between Facebook and Apple I choose Apple. Whatever I choose I will still live extremely comfortably. And yes not all those companies have an equally bad impact on society.

In both of your examples it's fair to say that you (or CS grads in Denmark) probably don't have that kind of leverage, because this is not the Silicon Valley. If you have to choose between working for FB at 150k$/year or public service for a third of that, then yes, choosing ethics has a big negative impacts on your life and it's hard to blame anyone for choosing FB.

They don't have this problem.

There are a lot of Danes in Silicon Valley, I mean, C++, C# and Ruby were made by Danes, so it’s not like Murica isn’t open for us.

You can make a lot of money in IT anywhere though. I manage 70 people, in a muniplacity that is well paid. I’ve been headhunted for much higher salaries throughout my career though, but I’ve always preferred public service.

The fact that I could be home at 15:00 on a Friday, with my kids picked up and the groceries done helped a lot in my younger years as well of course.

My bad.

That is my point. Many of them move to the SV because they can get better conditions (caused by more leverage) there than if they stay in Denmark because there is a magnitude more tech companies there than in DK. I'm pretty sure they don't just move to avoid the rain :)

I'm coming to the conclusion, pretty much nowhere is inscrutable and free from scandal in one form or another.

However that doesn't give us a pass to be glib and just throw our hands up and say, it's all bad who cares, get money. Nothing positive comes from cynicism.

It's especially important to call this out when companies are talking about "making the world better" or otherwise making broad statements about them being a positive force in the world. It's incongruous between reality and their public relations, and that needs to be talked about.

I live in Brazil, where a Facebook company, was used in a plot to spread fake news to elect a far right president. They are really against doing anything that may affect their bottom line.

No other tech company is this bad.

Here are a bunch of links from reputable sourcers:

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-45769992/fig...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/opinion/brazil-election-f...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/18/brazil-jair-bo...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brazil-ele...

http://nymag.com/developing/2018/10/whatsapp-too-late-fake-n...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/18/jair-bolsonaro-a...

The recent Times article indicates that they are dirtier than Google and Apple, so yes.

Possibly these companies: https://bcorporation.net/directory

But yes, the reaction is exaggerated.

Working at Netflix, Apple, Salesforce, Oracle, or Microsoft seems to be a category more ethical than Facebook/Google, wouldn't you say? Isn't that a good place to start? At worst, those companies are mainly just screwing over other companies (though depends on if Netflix is up to something behind the scenes)

Or, you know, profiting from human rights abuses: https://www.newsweek.com/iphone-x-release-human-cost-apples-...

Even here, different people in different situations might see this as either choosing idealism over money or the opposite.

I hear the Danish public service is good. Here though (ireland) the public service has a name for meaningless jobs with good conditions. This may be a self fullfiling prophecy.

Sometimes the differences can get abstract.

I watched an interview while back with coalition soldiers and mercenaries. Soldiers are generally seen as self sacrificing patriots. Mercenaries as greedy assholes. But, both are being paid and they do the same job in the same war and take orders from the same place.

Ultimately, a lot of this comes down to perspective.

It's a simple question you have to ask yourself. Do you value money more than your principles?

Oh I don't know, maybe one of those companies that isn't building software that's used to incite genocide?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

Can you give the name of this company / case? I can't find anything in English news of Denmark.

The system that does the same thing DUBU does today, and the next DUBU will, good enough is called sbsys.

It’s not a secret, the 120 million might be 128 million though, but it’s not completely unreasonable for what it’s meant to do, the politics involved and so on. It’s just hilarious that communal co-ownership of software did it for 2 million. I mean you could argue that it’s illustrating how silly enterprise software companies are in general, but it is what it is.

Enterprise software companies know exactly what they're doing - fleecing the government for every single dime they can.

You can't blame them - they're just acting on their natural capitalist instinct to maximize their return to shareholders.

Blame the government for its ridiculously bloated procurement process, uncompetitive career opportunities and a broken management system.

Government waste is utterly gobsmacking.

They use it on project management, sales management, key account management, four layers of testing setup that still lets bugs slip into production, and a whole lot of other useless stuff.

I mean, the budget is transparent, they spend less than 20% on actual development and makes less than 10% out as profits, so that’s 70% inefficiency, and they only won the contracts because all the big companies are like that.

You’re not wrong though, turning it political isn’t really great for building software. My point is just that a big company is almost as political as the public sector, and sometimes they are less adaptive because their political leadership and vision changes slower and has smaller range.

The equivalent system sbsys was also build by private sector developers you know, but here the political side handled the project management and codebase leadership, and apparently we’re just a lot better at that.

They also have to spend a lot on warm bodies/lobbying to get those contracts in the first place.

I'm not letting the enterprise providers off the hook. Just pointing out (as you note) that true responsibility lies with the project managers. Ineffectual project managers mean overblown budgets and undercooked results.

Yeah don't blame the exploiter, blame the victim!

I am sickened by this philosophy. Why do we let people get away with doing horrible things because "they're just doing their job". This sort of thinking breeds more immoral actions that are easily excused.

Granted, I think angrymob-media would be a much more fitting description than social-media, but it’s not like humanity wasn’t perfectly capable of making really shitty decisions long before the internet.

Google is not fbook, (not that I am a fan of big G - it's evil in other ways more so than fbook) -

Where is ethical in my mind is more shades of grey rather than place A is and Place B is not..

I think many people do not understand the immense power the fbook wields to truly get how damaging it is and can be. Some of us may not get sucked in by our evolving news feed, but that does not mean that it is not indeed sucking people in and keeping them hooked for it's benefit and to the detriment of other's lives.