> ethics are a separate issue

They're kinda the main thing I'm talking about here. Everyone knows perfectly well you can gain huge amounts by working at FAANG companies, that's not in doubt. The question is at what cost, do the people doing it see their companies for what they are, and why do people continue to work there if they do. I'm sure being CEO of Phillip Morris or Palantir or Exxon-Mobile is quite lucrative, but I'll pass.

Many people just need a job, and I don't begrudge anyone taking a job they need to support themselves or their families. But the kind of talent FAANG companies hire can likely work anywhere and are higher up the socioeconomic ladder. They have choices most others don't. And too many, in my opinion, work to get people to click ads and sell people's data.

My point is that it's irresponsible to reduce these companies to their ads and data practices, because they also tend to be great places to work and tend to offer a positive culture and benefits. You should consider everything before deciding to work there.

I'm not sure I see how having a great work environment and culture and compensation package justifies helping a company perform its primary function, if that primary function is harmful. I'm not reducing companies like Facebook and Google to their data and ad practices, those practices are their core business model. It's literally why they exist, despite what they may say. GM makes cars, Facebook and Google collect personal information to better sell ads. The awesome benefits and coworkers and cool problems and neat tech don't change why those companies exist. I'm simply questioning why people still work there, assuming they know what they're helping build. Ad tech. That no one wants or needs.