I think at this point everybody has a full view of the "sum ethics of the platform". Your concept of "innocent individuals/bystanders/cogs" might have been applicable in the past, but we are well past that point.

I've a friend who joined FB recently and he said, quote, yes yes I know it's evil but it's so interesting.

So there you have it in a nutshell straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.

Yes — your friend made a choice. Depending on personal ethics, various people might make various choices, but we are well past the point where people did not know what they were getting into.

At this point the way Facebook abuses privacy and data is general knowledge to the tech crowd. Anyone working on Facebook knows enough about how the platform works on a high level that claiming innocence through specific technical ignorance is complete nonsense.

I wonder what % of Facebook employees actually keep up with this stuff, ie how many of them are regularly on HN, etc? Might be a lot lower than we assume.

EDIT: or even how many pay attention to tech news in the mainstream media, for that matter.

It's hard to miss when your company is making headline news around the globe with data scandals involving interfering with US elections. It's damn hard to have not heard of Cambridge Analytica or possible Russian interference in the US election.

I've seen some internal memos with zuck reassuring the employees how much he cares, those memos aren't written in a vacuum, they are responses to things going on. Are you suggesting that Facebook employees don't read the internal memos sent to them or lack any critical thinking on why they are sent?

Oh I'm not suggesting they never hear anything. I'm just wondering how many actually care or look into it at all. The world is full of sensational stories. Sometimes it's easier to just do your job then go home and enjoy your weekends with your family.

Probably all of them with options pay good attention.

My argument is that we are long past the time when an engineer can implement something without thinking about the ethical and moral implications of how their work could be used.

And in the case of working at facebook, will most definitely be used.

I'd never take a job there, but that's different than condemning others who have.

I'd say in response to your German Army comparison, what were the options to quit the Landswehr and hire on with another better behaved army?

Facebook employees have vastly more options to leave a company that they reasonably know or should know is morally questionable, and quite likely to be able to find other employment.

That changes the measures of culpability (or at least compliance) significantly.

Do they? If you're waiting for a ton of options to vest, how much will you potentially lose by leaving? Where else is there to jump to in the Valley that isn't a startup that could close in a month, or isn't underhandedly conspiring with FB to not to hire each other's employees? If you're lucky enough to own property in Palo Alto - if your kids go to school there, how much do you want to have to commute to a place like the Financial District and have to play human feces hopscotch every day?

This comment is a great insight into the state of modern thinking on ethics. In this thinking, ethics are determined by economic result. I guarantee you that almost any Facebook employee could walk away with the clothes on their back and find a great school in Wisconsin for their children while they pay cash for a modest home. They could work for any of a hundred employers there that would benefit from their skills.

There are schools and jobs waiting in Georgia and Texas and Wyoming. They aren't Valley jobs. But they offer comfortable lives.

I appreciate the honesty of the parent post. It's all about the money and lifestyle. The part that makes me blink is that they think this somehow alters the ethics in a positive way.

You hit the nail on the head there. Many people don't care about ethical situations like this as long as they are getting paid. Its not that its wrong, its just that it may not be ideal if we want a society that works for all people. But to be fair, Wisconsin and Silicon Valley have different value systems.

I think the fear might be that by leaving the valley there will be no way back in for them or their kids, even if the valley reforms.

Your comment is a great insight into modern, black and white thinking, where one is expected to equate working at FB with committing the worst atrocities.

If I had a job, for example, maintaining photo storage at FB, should I be so ethically outraged that I should upend my whole life, and my family's life, to run away as quickly as possible?

This is not the argument to which I responded. If you want to argue that many jobs at FB are perfectly ethical, make that argument. If you want to argue that _every_ job at FB is ethical, make that argument.

If you want to argue that it is hard to quit FB because of money and schools, and that that changes the ethics, see my comment above.

You're crossing the wires on two different points.

1. I'm not arguing that every job at FB is ethical, I'm arguing that most aren't so unethical that one would permanently taint one's soul by staying there. This is especially so if you consider that FB has a chance to change, no matter how slim that chance is. Perhaps these people believe in the stated mission of FB and think they can help.

2. It's not at all easy to leave a job - not every engineer is a 20-something nomad with no kids. Finding a gig that matches a AAA, SV company in sum benefits is a hard task on its own, even if you're not geographically limited due to familial sentiment or obligations.

I hope more people see your comment. It is top notch.

Strawmen - In every moral decision there are inevitably "real world" concerns that make the choices easier or harder, sure.

That only changes the costs of the options, not the fact that you are either complicit or choose to leave.

Specific to your specifics, if changing circumstances _in_ the Valley is so hard, leave the Valley as well. I live in the Midwest, so my perspective has it's own skew, but SV sounds more and more like a crazy place to even try to live.

so, the developers get executed if they refuse to work for facebook and quit?

thats the actual reason why soldiers were spared in Nürnberg: because a lot of the army didn't actually have a choice. It was death or collaboration for them.

There are people who quit, but there's always another engineer willing to complete the work they wouldn't. That's the unfortunate reality.

That maybe true, but it is still no reason for someone who is ethical not to quit. Everyone who has a sense of ethics should quit. Then the company will have staff who are in alignment with its goals.

> thats the actual reason why soldiers were spared in Nürnberg: because a lot of the army didn't actually have a choice. It was death or collaboration for them.

My historical knowledge of this isn't as detailed as I would hope to have; do you have some suggestions - links, books, etc in regards to the details on the sentencing?

I can certainly understand that the higher up the chain you went, the more knowledge of the atrocities you would (or should reasonably) have, but was there a particular "breaking point" where "below this point nobody is charged or even censored"?

If so - how was that point decided? What if you were just an everyday Joe-in-the-trenches soldier who was on the front lines, but knew you had neighbors and friends that just "disappeared" and you had doubts or other misgivings?

Or what if you were a younger person, and had "snuck around" and seen something strange with the "hidden camps" in the countryside - but then became a soldier a few years on, and those sights as a kid haunted you?

Where's the ethical line?

If you had a very good and reasonable suspicion that what you were participating in, had actually much more grave consequences for neighbors and fellow citizens - even if you didn't agree with their views politically or morally (let's suppose) - would it be better to avoid being a conscripted soldier and dying, than to participate in what may turn out to be a brutal atrocity on the world stage?

I can see the conundrum - that you wouldn't know for sure what the truth was, and since you don't really know for certain, then "fighting for your country" - even if forced - was better than your country killing you (in some manner) because you didn't.

But I bet there were more than a few who did say "no" - and I wonder how many of them made it through the camps or other "work detail" where they quickly learned either some horrifying details from other prisoners, overheard conversations of guards, or just what they considered very frightening rumor (that ultimately turned out true)?

Those that survived - if any - I wonder if there have been discussions between them and those who joined though they may have had misgivings or doubts?

When you start to question and think about this - you begin to see why things are the way they are in Germany today; at the same time, you also wonder how is it that there is still - kinda in the shadows, kinda not - a level of "nationalism" and (possibly?) "German purity" movement in both Germany, and Europe (and the larger world stage).

A certain amount of it has to do with propaganda, conspiracy, and the like of course - but what else is driving all of this? Are we (humanity) doomed to repeat this kind of atrocity again and again (that is - genocide and such on a mass scale; while what happened during WW2 was perhaps (?) one of the largest examples in history, it is also - unfortunately - not a unique thing in humanity's history)?

I'm also aware of other history that can help explain some of this (that is, the targeting of the Jews - among other groups) - and it potentially goes back millenia, which is both sobering and depressing to realize that we're barely budging the status quo over the years...

Are you arguing that the developers have know less than we do? Internally maybe but they certainly have access to the news.

There are reasonable arguments for hanging the whole German Army after the war starting with dissuading monstrous wars of aggression with the idea that if we lose we'll all die.

> To use an extreme comparison, there's a reason the entire German army wasn't hung at Nuremberg.

An interesting alt-history fiction could be written where that was the case, I bet...