Distilling everything into such simplistic and disingenuous examples like "humans as money machines" is never productive, and a rather poor way to argue against thinking more intensively about a subject.

Facebook provides value for billions of people as evidenced by their usage. They don't pay so ads are a trade-off. There's nothing inherently wrong with that unless you have a problem with how business works. And yes, a company that is one of the 10 most valuable in the world has a wide range of roles and there are infinite reasons why someone would work for them.

Red herrings are also a poor way to argue the contrary ;)

Ok. You previously stated [1] that you "work in finance" and then described it in the same comment as "People hate finance because at the core it's sales and you make your keep by being predatory since everyone does it."

Perhaps you should have chosen not to work in finance then? Doesn't that industry quite literally "treat human beings like money machines"? Does this judgement not apply to you too?

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18997658

Yes, I am aware. That's why I quit finance, taught myself software engineering, and moved to northern Europe. Combing through my post history is a pathetic attempt at saving damage to your precious ego

I think you lost the topic here. The OP was talking about judging people based on just having Facebook on their resume. Likewise, under that rule, you too would be judged for having worked in finance. Your history is therefore relevant, and by your arguments I'm assuming you think it's fair to judge that way?

Good for you for changing careers but that doesn't make you better than anyone else nor is it applicable to any other person's life. Anyway, I'm not sure what ego has to do with anything but I'll take that as a sign that there are no better arguments forthcoming.

I'm okay with a prospective employer judging my finance past similarly to a past that includes Facebook. Ego has everything to do with failed ad hominem attacks, my friend

Then we disagree on making snap judgements of character based on just work history. I don't understand how that is ever a good thing.

However that comment wasn't an "ad hominem attack", but I suspect we disagree on the definition of that as well.

Perhaps FB is the only company that extended an offer with reasonable pay, or perhaps the only company willing to sponsor a Visa.

The list of possible extenuating circumstances extends to infinity when you think about it more deliberately. If you don’t, you’ve successfully bucketed someone based on quick, irrational judgment. That is poor behavior.