121–130 of 560 posts
While I trust FB has very good work perks. I will not be inclined to work there. It comes down to what do you value in life. Do you wanna literally help promote fascism and misinformation? Go work at FB and moonshine at Monsanto on your free time.
> Ms. Brown said a lot of students criticize Facebook and talk about how they would not work there, but ultimately join. “Everyone cares about ethics in tech before they get a contract,” she said. This describes my what I've observed perfectly. There are very few companies that make new grad offers comparable to Facebook's, and career advancement opportunities and working conditions at Facebook tend to be better than…
My theory is that pay and working conditions at Facebook are as good as they are precisely because of people feeling like this. They are having to pay a premium to attract engineers as a result of the moral opposition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What should the age limit be for publishing snarky comments?
I don't really think about it in terms of an age limit. To spell it out, my quibble is that the reporter quoted these kids by name and got them to agree to have their picture taken for publication, for a story that will likely give at least some prospective employers pause at some point.
I don't think companies are searching people's Twitter or Facebook accounts for controversial statements. The furthest that most would go is to call up a reference or talk to a previous employer.
Hiring committees don't have time to scrutinize every little last comment that someone has made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how real journalism works. The journalists are separated from the business side. Good publications go as far as prohibiting their editors from talking to anyone who deals with revenue.
Your impression of how real journalism works is a lot harder to believe. You don't think writers see and care about how many clicks or views their articles get? Everyone knows these metrics are _directly_ correlated with revenue. FB used to drive an insane amount of traffic to these publishers back when our news feeds were full of news articles. They pivoted very sharply and suddenly away from that, which hurt publis…
I think they care, but even so, they would write about FaceBook because it gets clicks, not because the org is mad at Facebook. The Times being mad at Facebook isn't what makes people click on the articles. It's people being mad at Facebook that gets them to click. There is no one in the chain of approval for content that would care about the loss of revenue from Facebook and specifically tell them to target Facebook for bad articles.
They would say, "hey writing about FaceBook gets us lots of views, do more of that".
If someone asked that question at an interview I would honestly be stunned. Like, either you're the biggest suck-up in the world, or the biggest fool. Either way, no hire.
Anyway, Facebook's actual mission seems to be to reimplement MySpace and they are honestly getting pretty close. Not all the features--but almost. So, at some point the need for Caltech engineers will drop off, and if more of them want to work on jet engines or whatever, maybe that's for their best.
I get that we don’t like Facebook, but isn’t this a bit much? Are they worse than google or amazon? What about people who work for Coca-Cola? What about the people who make mobile games and loot boxes for Blizzard? Where is it ethical to work? I mean, I’ve been in public service for decades, so I know a thing or two about choosing idealism over money, but that’s not for everyone and I frankly don’t think Facebook is…
Can you give the name of this company / case? I can't find anything in English news of Denmark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very similar to when you hear people say "I love my job but they don't pay a living wage!" It's because you love your job, you have to pay for that.
This kind of post-facto justification for poor working conditions or wages needs a name, so it can be dismissed out of hand. It seems to assume that the market is “fair” and getting poor pay must be justified by some other factor about the job. In reality, there are plenty of jobs that have garbage pay and suck. As well as jobs that are both lucrative and “easy”. Consider the average CEO: not the exceptional visionar…
Based on context, I suspect you mean merit as in moral merit. Economic merit is defined as the economic value add in a free market, so free markets are tautologically a meritocracy, because success in a free market is basically a definition of economic merit.
It certainly isn't fair, but nearly nothing is. Life is profoundly unfair.
> In western societies, no job should pay less than a living wage, no matter how enjoyable it is. That’s just an excuse for exploitation.
A debatable point - it is easy to justify making it as easy as possible for a worker to leave a job that isn't paying a living wage and find something else. However there are a lot of people out there and not all of them are working to live. Eg, maybe someone has a stead source of income (spouse, parents or investment money) and wants to get involved in something worthwhile but low value add. It isn't at all obvious why we should prevent that as a society because nobody thinks it is worth a living wage worth of money per hour.
A minimum wage is basically a declaration that work with less value add than some number is not worth doing. From an incentives point of view, it is really weird and there are probably better ways of helping people with nothing to offer their community.
I have concerns about Facebook just like everyone else, but I'd also like to point out that the New York Times is not repeatedly publishing articles criticizing FB simply because of their superior moral stance. They are doing it because FB took away a lot of revenue from publishers like them, and they are very, very angry about it.
That's a lovely conspiracy theory, and it makes people feel better about the situation, but it's not how things work in real life. Speaking as someone who worked in this field for a couple of decades, it's more likely that one or more New York Times reporters have developed good sources inside Facebook, and are milking them. The New York Times didn't make Facebook a monster, Facebook did.
> The New York Times didn't make Facebook a monster, Facebook did.
Did the parent assert anything like that?
I get that we don’t like Facebook, but isn’t this a bit much? Are they worse than google or amazon? What about people who work for Coca-Cola? What about the people who make mobile games and loot boxes for Blizzard? Where is it ethical to work? I mean, I’ve been in public service for decades, so I know a thing or two about choosing idealism over money, but that’s not for everyone and I frankly don’t think Facebook is…
I have to wonder how many of the top 50 or so tech companies have really sterling reputations for warm-hearted goodness. Powerful organizations usually end up stepping on somebody's toes either in getting to the top or staying there. And really, where else are you going to work if you are a developer and want to make money? One of the big banks? Plenty of dirt there. A defence contractor? Ditto.
I'd say Netflix has a pretty good external reputation. They do good by their customers and don't sell them out. They take your money and show your videos and don't share your data. They have hits and misses on their original content, but they don't actually make that stuff, they just compete with all the other big entertainment outlets to distribute what production companies make. There is of course strong opinions a…
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-26/netfli...