Unless you are joining as a SVP at least, this idea makes no sense.

Do you realize you're making my point?

It's really hard to make an impact (good/bad) at large firms.

Not true, its very easy to make a bad impact. Your work will almost always generate profit and capital for the company. On the other hand, making a good impact is much harder.

> Your work will almost always generate profit and capital for the company.

Let alone my experience, I have NEVER seen an argument supporting this conclusion. If anything, it's the opposite.

The capitalist mode of production relies on extracting the surplus value of the worker. Simply put, people have jobs because the company makes more money with the worker than without the worker. I have never heard any economist, heterodox or not, claim otherwise.

You're really misusing words based on common meaning.

And your phrasing can't reconcile why "90% of startups fail".

You're making a values judgment that's talking past this thread.

If you were being sarcastic, then I did not realize, no.

I don't see how me being sarcastic, you'd reach the same conclusion.

There's clearly a miscommunication.

> Assuming these companies are morally evil

OK, but what if we /don’t/ assume that? I understand that’s the only acceptable sentiment on HN, but it’s disappointingly uninformed.

Yes all the while taking advantage of their services and probably working for VC backed companies hoping that one of the “evil capitalistic companies” will acquire them.

Strangely enough I don’t see anyone railing against for profit evil companies willing to sacrifice their pay to work for a non profit or go into social work.

Indeed, and a complete lack of understanding of real value. For every HNer that complains about FAANG, there’s a million humans that enjoy and use their products.

Ironically, for eg, most of the DuckDuckGo posts here end up with DDGers explaining how they enjoy using “!g”…

Just because people use a product doesn't mean its intrinsically good

Just because you don’t think a product isn’t intrinsically good, doesn’t make it so either?

Only the most dogmatic critics of FAANG would argue that FAANG products provide no value. Everyone else is willing to acknowledge that they’re useful but come with trade offs - like everything else in life.

But if said people want to clutch their pearls about the “evil monopolistic capitalist”, they should be willing to make the sacrifices and not use those services, work for companies that use those services or work for VC funded companies who are hoping to be bought out by those companies.

How many people who want to take the moral high ground will give up their CS pay to become social workers to “make the world a better place.”?