If a software engineer writes software that hurts people, they believe in hurting people and believe people should be hurt.
If they didn’t, they wouldn’t write software that hurts people.
The impressive amount of freedom tech workers have to choose what they work on means the ethical and moral issues with their production should fall on each person’s shoulders, but it doesn’t.
FB is what it is because 45,000 employees work hard daily to make it that way.
if they weren't satisfied with how it works or what it does, they'd fix it or they'd leave. every day they continue to work there without changing direction, they vote with their time that FB is doing what it ought to be doing.
all of the responsibility for FB's effects on the world belongs to them.
I’m at a loss to understand why your statement means this person, or anyone who increases the suffering of others in the pursuit of their own personal wealth, shouldn’t feel bad about doing so.
you're making the incorrect assumption that both sides of the discourse have valid positions.
1. what is a non-racist person supposed to say to a racist person to change their views?
2. why is it the non-racist person's responsibility to talk to the racist person? in the words of office space, "why should I change? he's the one who sucks."
Facebook makes far too much money showing ads to their "more conservative user base" to do anything more than token gestures to stop racism and calls to violence.