- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
“We will monitor all our users and sell their meta data to advertisers, but we draw the line at Meta tracking our mouse clicks!”
WAAH!
How’s it feel, motherfuckers!?
Do Meta employees tell people where they work, or do they hide it the way people hide that they’re MAGA. You know, because who would want to fuck a Meta employee?
The people I know who are MAGA don’t usually try to hide it… I wish they would…
people hide that they’re MAGA
Where are you that they’re hiding?
They don’t hide it because they make bank
Oh you work for Zuckerberg? Fuck you.
I wonder how many of those people have a choice. The job market might not afford people with their credentials many options for decent enough pay to sustain a dignified livelihood.
Some may be callous, some may actively think that what the company is doing is good and right, but I don’t think generalising such sentiments over all employees is fair. The system is fucked; don’t blame the victims.
(Of course, you’d need a kind of social safety net to catch the employees if you want to dismantle the company. Just destroying the old without preparing the new would be counterproductive.)
Is your argument that they deserve the pay so it doesn’t matter how they get it? They are selfish, and likely over extend themselves financially for ego and status. Apparently you are saying the only way they can be happy is if they are wealthy? What a morally bankrupt philosophy.
The fuck are you getting that from? I didn’t talk about wealth, nor happiness, nor ego and status, nor how any of those things justify working for a horrifyingly evil company.
I talked about a dignified livelihood. You know, being able to pay rent, utilities, groceries, gas and put a little aside so medical emergencies or unexpected expenses don’t trap you in irrecoverable debt.
Is your argument “People should rather starve”? Is the only ethical existence one outside of exploitative, fucked up systems?
I’m sure that many are indeed there because of the money. My argument is that condemning the employees wholesale is likely to catch people that don’t deserve this vilification. My suggestion is to direct that rage against the fucked-up system that both enables exploitative dependencies on employment and allows companies like Meta to exist in the first place.
You think the choices are work for Meta or starve? Its Raytheon or be homeless?
Fuck out of here with that nonsense. If you trade morals for money, dont be surprised when people call you out as morally bankrupt. Isn’t that the trade that was made? Grow up and own your shit.
You think the choices are work for Meta or starve?
To the same degree that a livelihood equals wealth: Not really, but it seems like nuance is out of stock anyway. If we can only talk in absolutes, then sure, let’s go with that.
I don’t know the job situation wherever these employees live. You take for granted that there are plenty of jobs available, but given the current tide of layoffs and hiring stops, I’m not so confident.
I know people (my wife, some family, some close friends; some EU, some US; some tech, some other sectors) struggling to find a job, for all their credentials, because all their applications to just about any vaguely applicable position within the area they can reach are rejected (and for some of them, there are few positions to begin with). If they got a job anywhere that would pay them a living wage, they could hardly afford to turn it down.
It’s even worse in the US, where healthcare may be tied to your employer. One (western US) friend with chronic health issues had to stick with a toxic job for way too long because they genuinely couldn’t afford to quit. Hence, my point is that there’s a very real chance that some employees are trapped in their job, however gilded the cage may be.
Many employees may have the luxury of choice and choose money over morals, true. For some, the choice may have been a question of stability. If there was a reliable social security system to catch anyone that quits, I’d even agree that they all had the choice.
But as things are, I worry that painting all employees the same brush erases nuance and covers up the ugly systemic issues that enable the exploitation of users and employees alike, which we justly hate Meta for.
But then, I guess nuanced looks at contributing factors are hard and calling people morally bankrupt is more satisfying than acknowledging the morally expensive system that bankrupts people in the first place, morally and financially.
There is nuance, but some companies are far past that. Meta is one of them. Theres a bunch of other examples. I dont think walmart employees are morally bankrupt, however, because the Walton’s are. There has to be a line somewhere and some companies have caused too much harm on too large a scale.
There is nuance, but some companies are far past that.
The nuance isn’t about the fucked-upness of the company, but about the humans. The company is beyond redemption, no doubt.
There has to be a line somewhere
Why? Why should we decide a point at which it’s okay to dehumanise people? What do we gain by simplifying economic and social complexities down to “they’re all just evil”?
Again, I care about fixing the system that allows things like Meta to exist (because cutting one head won’t kill the hydra) and trap employees (Meta and elsewhere) in fucked up dynamics where “just leave” isn’t a viable option.
If your necessities are taken care of either way and the choice is purely between excess wealth and ethical responsibility, sure, anyone who chooses to enrich themselves at the expense of others is a dick. If the company is torn down and they lose their job, no tear will be shed. But that basic security needs to exist in order to enable ethical decisions and put the onus on the employees for continuing to support a fucked up stain on human dignity.
Maybe 15 years ago that was true. Now, fuck them, they know what they are working for. If they want redemption they can quit and join open source communities.
join open source communities.
How much do those pay? Enough for rent and groceries? Send your kids to college maybe?
Choice is a luxury not everyone can afford, and the job market is fucked up in some places, particularly with things like dependency on your employer for healthcare and stability concerns. Yes, the cage may be gilded, but I doubt that it’s empty.
Attack the system that binds them. Build a socisl safety net that they can trust to catch them and see to their necessities*. Make it a purely binary choice between excess and morality. Whoever continues to sell their soul can burn with the rest of the company.
*The catch with many unemployment benefit systems is that they only fully apply if you are fired without fault, not if you quit, unless you can prove specific circumstances such as health issues or workplace toxicity, which can be quite a hurdle. Whatever safety we offer has to lower the barrier for those circumstances and permit ethical concerns as justified reason to leave.
The working class needs jobs. Capitalists own the means of production; these means require the workers. Are you arguing that some capitalists are good/bad? They all ravage the world and exploit labor as the capitalist system requires.
This always happens.
A company that acts without empathy for their customers will invariably act the same towards their employees. This is because the behavior is usually driven by personalities in leadership that (dis)function this way rather universally. Add the fact that empathy limits one’s ability to make money (in this economy), and that psychological modeling is a thing in the workplace, and it’s easy to see how we keep getting into trouble like this.
There really isn’t an “at the right hand of the devil” scenario. Everyone is in his path, especially if you’re close.
empathy limits one’s ability to make money (in this economy)
Idk if there’s any economy where greed and empathy work well together
I think it’s possible (theoretical at least) that greed can be harnessed in specific ways to do good and even empathetic works; it’s a potent motivator after all. IMO, there’s likely a balance. But the overarching market and financial governance can’t ever be on the side of greed for that to work. Otherwise, the people in power pull all the stops and the experiment is rendered moot.
OK, so, I hate Meta and offer no sympathy. But, if I were hypothetically in that scenario, I would work very hard to develop a keyboard centric workflow. Sure, they can key log everything, but it’s going to be way more annoying for them to go through tons and tons of TAB strokes.
There will be generated summaries - the LLMs don’t care about input format
This is kinda funny because I’m getting into Fluent Search (Windows) and (trying to make) Hints (Linux) (work), so the company wouldn’t be able to collect as much data on me if my workplace were to start doing this for any reason (though that’s not the reason I’m trying these programs).
wow, that fluent search is basically the kde plasma’s app launcher
Yeah, it’s quite good! It’s too bad that it’s not cross-platform, but I think it performs best out of the open-source trifecta of Wox Launcher and Flow Launcher, all of which I’ve personally tried.
