Your argument is essentially that the company treated its employees well, so who cares what it did to users. Who gave you the right to decide the discussion is framed around how Meta treats employees rather than what it does for the entire world?

But is it compulsory to be so Manichaean? Have you really never seen someone (or group of people, or company) behave well in one context, and badly in another?

I understand perfectly well that they are both depending on context.

All I'm saying is that the harm they inflict on billions of people outside the company outweighs the good they do for thousands inside. Just because there's both good and bad doesn't mean the degree of each cannot be weighed at all.

Your redoubled insistence on a clearly irrelevant totalising good/bad judgement as a purported response to a quite specific comment about labour practices is more than a tad onanistic.

ouch okay lol good burn. I like your love of the English language you taught me some interesting words.

Not sure I really intended it as a burn, though you're right I do love words, sometimes to a fault! That was a generous response anyway. Not one of my better days. Thanks.

I made no such argument. It is counter productive and disengenous state otherwise.

I asked a question, no conclusions drawn. If I had a point, it's that the comment was off topic with regard to the comment it replied to, and warrants its own tree of discussion. It was a rant; There wasn't even an attempt at a segue or good faith effort to provide contrast.

What "gives me the right to decide how the discussion is framed" are the hn guidelines (which you violated yourself by presenting a strawman).

Work culture and values both matter. I found @Leires comment insightful because it jarred me to the reality that while we are appreciating the good in someone, we shouldn't forget their capability to be bad. Can a Gandhian be comfortable working at Hitler's gas chamber? Both had amazing leadership qualities. What attracts us to either of them are the values we think they represent.

The comments were specifically about Zuckerberg's character. The replies should be about Zuckerberg's character. The reply in question didn't even mention him.