> . I'm a hypocrite. I admit

Great, admission is the first step.

> but the pay is too good to find alternative.

Yet then you immediately undo it!

Try "I'm too greedy". You're the actor with the free will here. The subject of the sentencd shouldn't be "the pay". That is just an amount, a sum, that exists - neither too high nor too low. That is all in the eye of the beholder.

Individual action means absolutely nothing. This person shouldn’t be disparaged for making money for themselves and their family. Every single big corp that pays well is creating the torment nexus. You have to pick your poison. I personally draw the line at missiles and mass surveillance.

> Individual action means absolutely nothing.

You may want to view action and sphere of influence. Does an individual have international or national influence? Probably not. How about within their community, home, or person? Probably, yes.

I want a good society and I think that’s will be made up of good individuals making individual action. So to me, this all starts at home with the individual’s sphere of influence.

I largely agree with you. I should have clarified that I don’t personally believe individual action matters in this specific scenario.

I left the company as of today btw :)

Honestly, the EU is more likely to change the behavior of e.g. Facebook than a single employee would.

(IMO if the US federal government spent more time caring for it's citizens it would consider doing such things more seriously itself).

Give them a break. People want to live a good life. We as a society shouldnt incentivize bad behavior with capital

Engaging in bad and immoral behaviour for capital is still bad and immoral behaviour, particularly when one has other choices.

The point of capitalism is that it incentivizes behavior at a large scale through the allocation of capital. That behavior could be bad or good.

The way to make sure that behavior isnt bad is to regulate the economy to ban it. Not to scold people who follow those incentives but then do nothing about the actual incentive structure

I'm all for banning social media as well as tracking in general, and will also happily work to those effects.

It's also prudent to shame those who allocate and greedily take that capital.

This is so sad to read. Knowing that the people actively making every aspect of life more monetized and addictive are acutely aware of the harm they create, yet are motivated by such base selfishness that they can ignore all that for the paycheck.

Could your observation be any other way though?

It recognise addiction (limited agency vs influence) and monetisation (economic rewards the primary means to influence behaviour) as problematic. It kind made “doing bad for pay” a premise of the system.

Large pay-checks incentivising bad behaviour is exactly another observable outcome of the same systemic issue.

I have yet to find examples of high pay where the pay is not actually to compensate for an immoral job, one way or another.

If you had to choose between two identical jobs and salary at a company but at big tobacco vs a hospital, which would you choose? I think most people would pick the hospital. Hence the only reason people work at big tobacco is either because of a genuine interest in their product (rare IMHO) OR because the pay is higher.

This applies to big tech too.

I am very curious if people here agree with my reasoning.

I worked at Russia's largest social media company as the founding Android developer. I quit as soon as I realized it was only going to get worse from now on after an acquisition and a very noticeable shift in user treatment. But that job was never about the money for me. The salary was just a nice yet optional bonus.

> the pay is too good to find alternative.

You don't sound psychopathic so I'm genuinely curious what you do with your money to keep your conscious clean.

Bevause I think your salary is practically blood money at this point.

Blood of the additional instagram girls with anorexia.

The additional children with severe myopia.

The additional people murdered by persons radicalized by media that had to polarize news to survive the loss in readership or by the false advertising of quality control on hate speech.

The list goes on and on.

Idk man, amongst thousands of layoffs (assuming op is in the USA) I'd take "blood money" over uh... starvation

If it was the choice given, I can understand.

But I don't think people having the skills needed by FAANGS are at risk of starvation, even if not working for a large conglomerate. Do you?

That's why I am genuinely asking OP their reasons.