It’s weird coming into this thread after just finishing Schindler’s List. It’s like the polar opposite of how to effectively operate in an evil system.

For anyone who believes they’re participating in an evil system: quit, whistleblow, or sabotage. Don’t be like this guy.

He literally did all 3? He whistleblew, sabatoged by doing this in a way that it got to the media and by insulting Zuck, and he got himself fired.

Whistleblowing would be working with the media or regulators to get out as much information as possible. Sabotaging is staying at the company and thwarting their efforts. What he did (calling attention internally to messages that were already available for employees to see) barely counts as either of those. Sure, you could say he effectively quit.

Your attempts to draw parallels between the nazis and facebook by invoking schindlers list hasn’t gone unnoticed. FB has its flaws, but isnt half as bad as what you are trying to paint it to be. Not everyone who disagrees with your point of view is a nazi.

Jeez, my point isn’t that Facebook is equivalent to Nazism. It’s that Oskar Schindler and this guy both thought they were part of a bad organization, and one was way more effective at handling it than the other. Are you familiar with his story?

Maybe this was him "quitting" and he knew this would happen but e.g. he still wanted to be eligible for unemployment benefits

This, exactly. There are effective and non-effective ways to do a thing. Sometimes the non-effective ways are actively harmful to others trying to do the same thing. That's all true whether "the thing" is good, bad, or neutral. Whatever good this person might have done, they also inflicted some damage on their own cause by letting their emotions run away with them.

You see this everywhere in engineering (and maybe other industries notorious for having smart but low-EQ people). Someone has what could potentially be a good point, but they blow it with their tone-deaf or unintentionally insulting delivery. It can be any message, political charged or not. Think of that guy we all know who is really smart but just can't seem to do a code review without making it personal.

> It's a shame, because if this guy had an emotional intelligence he could have personally driven change. Now he's a martyr at best.

That's a bit offensive to all the others who are driving positive changes without acting crazy. We only see the bad apples.

How so? The point is that his behavior is not the best way to drive change.

If other people are behaving in a way that better drives change, how would the above offend them?