Oh, I don't think that quite describes this. Someone else is calling out Facebook for lack of morals. Then the press goes to advertisers for comment. Advertiser then say "shocked, shocked, this will hurt them terribly. We, ourselves, are always upstanding and penalize immoral actors terribly." And yeah, from a fairly immoral bunch of folks, who would think that what they say and what they do would be different?

I would be "shocked, shocked" myself.

Plus I'd assume revenue, not stock price, is the thing to watch.

NYT is a competitor to Facebook, so it's kind of tacky. (I didn't flag the post though.)

I hope so! I’m starting there next year so the less their stock is worth then the more I can profit on my RSUs assigned on joining.

I hope that ends well for you.

Sometimes, your means goals can undermine your top-priority goal.

If you were really Machiavellian, you’d be a welder with a side project using pilfered IP — realizing that being “in the sewers” is much more productive if you’re not destabilizing the very society you’re going to later depend on.

I’ll try to raise my children similarly. I’ll teach them about privacy, like my dad who insisted that each family member should have their own account on the family computer, even when we were small kids with my brother.

The way I see it, if it weren’t for FB, there would be others trying to manipulate them, like other tech companies, advertisers in general, or simply scammers. So the need to raise your children to be conscious about these things is not a recent development, and not strictly due to FB. I know this doesn’t make me “innocent” though.

I get the logic, I just don’t agree — and I think it’s the kind of thinking that underlies “penny wise, pound foolish” or similar sayings. It’s also just outright untrue that anything like Facebook existed over 20 years ago — you’re contributing to something new, or at least a massive escalation in kind likely to bring about qualitative differences, not merely producing “more of the same”.

Also, I think it’s naive to say kids with critical thinking skills are equipped to fend off hundreds of PhDs backed by thousands of programmers implementing their tools, coupled to all of their friends peer pressuring them.

Or adults, or institutions, or....

I don’t want you to think I don’t respect your motivations or view, though — I just think you made some errors in assessing trade offs, in a way that hurts not only you, but everyone else.

I think that’s worth pointing out.

Have a good one, and sincerely, best luck starting a family!

Maybe you'll get a bit less on salary, but that may be offset by stock options that increase in value. As opposed to joining a company when you are already convinced its value is on the way down, or even hoping for that scenario. It's weird, it's like you're betting against your own team.

After that I’ll be hoping for their stock to shoot up of course. And that’s the scenario OP was outlining.

You already explained this in your parent comment.

"After that I’ll be hoping for their stock to shoot up of course."

Why would it suddenly shoot up after you join? Assuming you're not joining as CEO, of course.

"And that’s the scenario OP was outlining."

What are you referring to? This scenario was not outlined in the original NYT article nor in my root comment.

I was referring to this scenario:

>The stock will have to tank for at least another 3-6 months before the prospect of a shareholder revolt will finally motivate the board of directors to put an adult in charge.

If this happens then there’s potential for the stock to bounce back. Of course me joining would have nothing to do with it, but it would be my best-case scenario.