>The company is facing real scrutiny right now. It takes resolve to work hard through it, but I know my work does good for people who rely on us to be good stewards of their data.
Maybe it is a bit tacky to reply to my own post, but it was a short quip and I figured I'd add some detail without muddying the clarity of my OP.
A free market, capitalistic society depends on a strong legal framework with adequate enforcement. My data belongs to me and I should have the choice to set its price and sell it if I want (or not). Facebook's constant theft of data (to call out one of FB's many misdeeds) highlights a blatant failure of that legal framework.
If you work for FaceCrook, you support their crooked endeavors and that's your choice - you have plenty of opportunities to earn a living that don't support such socially destructive actors.
It's an ambiguous statement. A good steward of users' data might mean that you ensure 100% uptime at scale, and minimize unauthorized exfil (this is probably what the OP works on).
Yet another type of stewardship is to be transparent about what you collect, why, and with whom you share it. Yet another is to be transparent about how you choose to manipulate people's behavior, both online and off. This is, of course, where Facebook fails spectacularly. But its not inconsistent with OP's words.
Well, it seems to be more than that: "High pay, free food, endless perks, business travel, free gear, extravagant parties and events. I really feel like a rockstar here."
"The people at this company actually believe in the mission of bringing the world closer together. They recognize and embrace the huge responsibility it puts on us.”
I just don't understand how very smart people can so passionately believe in a closed loop. The metaverse will never immanentize until it is a protocol. A single company in charge will never exist in perpetuity unless you subscribe to PKD's "the Empire never ended".
"Nothing gold can stay" is the better measure of a single company espousing a single vision for all.
Protocols not products. Surely some of these very smart people at Meta see that their baby must be let go before it can touch the hearts and minds of all humans everywhere.
That’s literally what Zuckerberg emphasized over and over in his talks though. What makes you assume that the folks at Meta won’t be developing such a protocol?
The goal would be to retain their present prime position, transported into the Metaverse.
They don't have to own the Internet and its protocols to generate $44b in operating income every year.
By helping to establish the Metaverse, they'll aim to lay down a system that makes monetization possible, which they can take advantage of with their resources. It's quite simple and straight-forward.
When you're integral to establishing a new system, you get to help form its inner workings, you get influence in setting the rules for how it works.
Facebook is not a protocol. Messenger started as interoperable with XMPP then poof took it away. Look at what corporations/people/nations do not what they say.
> I just don't understand how very smart people can so passionately believe in a closed loop
Does good programmer == very smart?
Does good mechanic == very smart?
Part of the echo chamber bias on HN is that programmers are an elite class of citizen that is head-and-shoulder's above the rest in terms of intellect. I whole-heartedly disagree with this proposition because I've met many, many programmers who were absolute ding-dongs.
If you stop deifying programmers (& engineers) it becomes easier to see they are just average tradespeople who trade happens to be in extremely high demand right now. And then other things fall into place, like how they can fall for their own bubbles.
To be fair, FAANG-like places have essentially IQ tests as a big part of hiring. I think the GP comment could be rephrased as a pretty common observation that people who are academically or "traditionally" smart in a narrow sense can be super dumb in other ways. Just because you can propose a n•log(n) solution to find the maximum volume bound between two heights and widths represented in array entries doesn't mean you have some superior political thoughts or whatever. People seem to forget this sometimes
Yep. I have a relative that is a certified genius, got a full scholarship to an Ivy League school and is now a C-level executive with one of the big banks.
He also totaled his Mercedes when he got his first job out of college because he didn't know that you're supposed to check the oil levels and burned up the engine.
I agree with your overall statement, but if you’re referring to leetcode puzzles then I would definitely challenge your suggestion that they’re in any way equivalent to an IQ test. IQ tests are much broader and cover many different categories of intelligence.
Keep in mind Meta isn't developing just 1 product. The metaverse needs advanced tech for it to be realized. Once one or two companies develop the tech, of course new competitors will come in and possibly do it better. But you still need a pioneering company with vast resources to lead the way. For example, Microsoft developed XMLHttpRequest, which led to Google Maps and many other wonderful modern products/services.
Yes and not. It's a bit like Apple, nothing is really new or cutting edge, but the packaging is smart and the UI/UX is beautiful. I think same is for multiverse, otherwise Second Life should have won already.
I think you're overly focused on the long term. Consider that helping people now is, in itself, often a good thing, even when a product doesn't last.
Also, there are more ways to contribute to progress than inventing new protocols. Big tech companies often release open source tools that take a life of their own. (Not always, but often enough.)
There are also research papers. Research is often not directly useful, but someone can use it to build something that is useful.
And don't discount imitators. Good ideas are often copied widely.
Meta’s internal “you’ve been here longer than X% of the company” metric does not give credit to total tenure (ie. boomerangs), so IMO it’s highly misleading as a measure of attrition.
They've said in recent earnings calls that attrition during the pandemic has been lower than normal. Lower than Meta even wants, since it means people who aren't aligned with the company are deciding to stay.
It's a growing company. It looks like the number of Facebook employees went up 60% or so since then. [1] At that rate, it's mathematically impossible for there not to be 60/160 = 37% of employees newer than him, even if nobody left.
It’s nice to see a post that acknowledges the obvious truth that Meta is a great company with great people that does great things. Sure they do bad things too, but calling them bad and evil is usually all I ever see on HN and Twitter.
Yes, those are obvious important truths, but weird to cite without related truths that shed more light on why Meta has the money, power and influence it does. Like that people there are smart, believe in the vision, care to do a good job. And that users love the products. If you’re summarizing positive bullet points from the article, you’ve only listed 3 of about 10.
I'm pretty much listing off the subheaders, none of which I dispute nor seem to be disputed by the general consensus. What is still unclear, however, is how to draw an arrow from "I love working here" to "the product is great." I think everybody here has experiences in companies/roles that are large and/or opaque enough to muddy that cause-and-effect.
Your dad will need to take more responsibility about who he listens to or suffer the consequences. If you don’t think your dad is capable of doing that, you can help explain these subjects to him, or delete his Facebook account, or whatever you need to do. Blaming Meta seems to me like basically learned helplessness on your part.
> [people] do the right thing at the cost of their reputation
You tell me that and expect me to believe the rest? Get that bag, sure. But don't lie to yourself and don't lie to me about what you're supporting in the process.
That it costs people their reputation to try to do the right thing at Facebook, sure, I believe that much no problem. Right there with you about the rest.
A lot of us working in tech have it pretty well with salaries well above the norm, flexibility that isn't allowed to those at places like Amazon fulfillmet, benefits above many those working union jobs. That said, there is a very visible entitlement, especially those that chase TC uber alles.
I changed roles recently after a decade long term at a company I never thought I would work for. I left because I wanted some additional challenges that my current role didn't allow for as well as technologies outside what I helped grow. I left some flexibility, got offered new growth opportunities and will see what comes over the next couple of years.
Meta, Google, and Amazon, if you have any indication you are looking around, are companies that will reach out. I've talked with Amazon on and off for a long time. I have more respect for the teams, hiring managers, etc. from 10 years ago than any of them now. They will do a lot of things short of lying to get someone in the door. Google, yeah no. Their onsite policy as well as hoops you have to go through around open source (unless you are super high profile) just aren't worth it. Meta - even the recruiter had a hard time making excuses up as various scandals roll out.
For the rank and file, do what's right for you. For those with clout, you have leverage others may not have.
For now, for me, I'm dealing with a bit of a new world in domain I know. Retention will be based off growth and learning, not idiot perks to keep buts in seats as long as they can every day or the highest dollar possible.
> Google, yeah no. Their onsite policy as well as hoops you have to go through around open source (unless you are super high profile) just aren't worth it.
Did you mean Apple here? Given that it's the only FAANG other than netflix you didn't mention and this seems like a much better description of Apple.
Well then, if you think that about google then I can only imagine what you'd think of apple. Google seems to be hiring quite a lot of remote right now, and their OSS policies seems quite open to me.
It’s interesting to contrast the experience around the physical office between Jk’s post and Lincoln’s “why I left” post (linked by Jk).
Jk joined before covid, remembers the physical office, and currently gets some face-to-face time with teammates. Lincoln joined remotely and never got to meet his team. It seems like this was a big reason Lincoln left, and a factor in why Jk stays.
"The people at this company actually believe in the mission of bringing the world closer together. They recognize and embrace the huge responsibility it puts on us."
Bro if that were true then the end product of Facebook would be significantly different.
Seems like dude stays at this company that pays him well because, as he says,
- that's not true
- that's blatantly, superlatively not true
- They let him play with the lives of billions of people
- And they pay him well with good perks.
Yeah sorry JK Jensen, I read your post and all it says is you're greedy and avoidant. You love the great pay and great perks, and you lie to yourself about the impact you're having.
> The people at this company actually believe in the mission of bringing the world closer together.
I'm sure this is true, but that's not the point. Lots of people chose to do wrong things due to the belief in their mission.
The Russians believe they're doing the right thing in Ukraine right now, does that justify their actions, the death and destruction? People always believe they're doing the right thing, whether or not it's actually true. Corporations just make it really easy to convince yourself that what you're doing has a positive impact because they have entire teams of people whose job it is to create that messaging.
We all have the capacity to lie to ourselves, and I'm sure getting treated like a "rockstar" helps to avoid reality, as the author points out.
If you still wonder why people work at Facebook, here's your answer. They, like so many others out there, believe the lies they manufacture themselves to perpetuate this system. They're hooked on their own supply.
>If you still wonder why people work at Facebook, here's your answer.
I think the primary incentive is money; if it wasn't for the money they would work for some nonprofit or be self-employed but the thing is nor nonprofit nor self-employment can earn you the money that Facebook can pay you unless you really "make it" by being self-employed.
My assumption is majority of people are incentivized by money not by the cause but me personally I would rather try to "bring people closer together" by doing my thing than believe in corporate bullshit that Facebook feeds you with day in, day out.
I suspect that a great salary helps attract/retain - but (and I'm not a rockstar coder who has to worry about this) - but out of the FAANGs, Facebook on the surface looks to be the least interesting.
There's the big social media silo and the Oculus and Whatsapp acquisitions - but nothing I look at and think "it would be cool to work on that".
Just feels similar to some of the old guard like ebay - a dominant company that makes and I'm sure can pay well, but nothing I'd cut off my left arm to work on.
>Facebook on the surface looks to be the least interesting.
lol. i work on compilers at FB. it's like being a kid in a candy store.
edit: and in comparison to google (not sure about amazon and ms), it's a much more open culture regarding technical reporting.
maybe it's surprising, maybe it's not, but internal communications are done over workplace i.e. FB (so FB for FB). that means i can see all manner of technical writeups from all parts of the company, and i can immediately reach out to people (chat) and quickly learn about new things. just imagine, thousands and thousands of experts in their area, working on high tech, a chat away. and i'm not even just meaning SWE type people - i've chatted at length with some of the machinists at that support prototyping for oculus.
it's not utopian (often times you can't get an answer from someone when you need it) but it's pretty great. when/if i leave for another FAANG i will definitely miss that.
I stand corrected - think my obvious flaw was just judging from what's observed from outside. You're completely right that it's the internal processes that mainly affect your job enjoyment.
You make a a great argument, without any evidence. I think there is a real case to made for saying that Facebook/Meta's products have brought people much closer together. Between Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp I am _far_ more frequently in contact with friends (and acquaintances) than an alternate reality where these products do not exist.
Social media is an inevitable result of the internet. Take a look at any social platform: Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, and Snap. All of these platforms suffer from similar issues to Facebook/Instagram. They all harbour disinformation, and all of these platforms come with considerable other downsides along with their main positive goal: connecting people.
I am not a Meta apologist. Meta and Zuckerberg, have made plenty of mistakes in their history. Facebook and Instagram happen to be the two biggest platforms (discounting YouTube and chat-only platforms). Perhaps _some_ of the issues we see on these platforms are inevitable outcomes as a result of human behaviour? I've spent some time diving into Facebook's efforts in moderation and safety. Despite all the negative coverage, they are one of the companies that has actually poured a lot of resources into these functions.
for someone complaining about a lack of evidence, this response is dripping with bias and unprovable speculation
we simply do not have access to an "alternate reality where these products do not exist" (so talking about it is misleading at best) and to claim that platform issues are "inevitable outcomes ... of human behavior" is a dangerous fallacy; what we can talk about meaningfully is what these companies and platforms do and are doing, and no amount of specious talk can (or should) cover for the astounding negatives that they have imposed on society.
I found this piece revolting. The author feigns a conscience so that you too, conscientious engineer, can stomach working for the modern day equivalent of big tobacco. To be clear I don’t have a problem with anyone who works at Meta, but I do have a problem with taking the moral high ground in doing so. Admit it’s the wrong thing to do but too fun/lucrative to pass up, your life and that of the people around you will benefit.
Seriously, just say "I like money and interesting technical problems and don't really care about the bad stuff FB has done/is doing/will do." At least people who work at Exxon and Raytheon and Altria (the artist formerly known as Phillip Morris) don't publish little screeds about how important their work is, and how they're just misunderstood.
I've been around the block a few times, but I've never ever heard anyone tell me they don't deserve whatever money they've got. And I mean everyone from day laborer to executive to thief; they're all the heroes of their own story and they can always justify their actions.
Yeah, I tried hard to read this post as un-judgmentally as I could and found it very difficult to agree with how "righteous" it came off. It made me feel like I was metaphorically gagging reading the following quotes:
> The people at this company actually believe in the mission of bringing the world closer together.
> I have seen people at various levels of the company fight for the interests and safety of the billions of people who use our services
> people who rely on us to be good stewards of their data
That being said, I can completely respect staying for an intellectually stimulating environment, loving the content of your job, awesome compensation (autonomy, pay, etc.) and a company culture that feels comfortable to you.
As other comments have said it feels comparable to someone working at the digital equivalent of a Big Tobacco company and sharing how what they are doing is beneficial.
I would love to be checked on this which is why I am commenting: am I too in a bubble? Is my reaction to the perceived righteousness of Meta too much of me being overly anti-Meta?
P.S. sincere thanks to the post's author for putting their views out there -- although I disagree with their stance I applaud them for feeling fulfilled and caring about what their company does
I just joined Meta. I don't believe in the vision, or the mission, or the pillars, or whatever. I don't use Facebook, or WhatsApp, or Instagram, or any other Meta properties. I took the job for the money (I don't need or care about the name on my resume), and I plan to move on in a year when I don't need to repay the hiring bonus.
Listening to the self-righteous drivel they ram down our throats during orientation has made me literally and physically gag on multiple occasions. It's painfully self-serving, and it has made me dislike the company more than I did from the outside.
I 100% see social networking as digital tobacco, and I take pleasure in my other projects that I think are more helpful for mankind (or at least not negative). But Meta pays really well, and it's that pay that will allow me to pursue my other hobbies and interests.
Have I sold my soul? Probably. In a year I'll see if it was worth it.
Fuck you. Leave that company and do your work somewhere else. I don't care if everyone thinks they are doing well, it's cancer. Your blog post is an embarrassment. Leave it up so we can see how well it ages.
That's my opinion. My FU here is not a reflection of who you are as a person, but how I feel. You made me read you blog post, so my response is FU.
68 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] thread/s ???
A free market, capitalistic society depends on a strong legal framework with adequate enforcement. My data belongs to me and I should have the choice to set its price and sell it if I want (or not). Facebook's constant theft of data (to call out one of FB's many misdeeds) highlights a blatant failure of that legal framework.
If you work for FaceCrook, you support their crooked endeavors and that's your choice - you have plenty of opportunities to earn a living that don't support such socially destructive actors.
Yet another type of stewardship is to be transparent about what you collect, why, and with whom you share it. Yet another is to be transparent about how you choose to manipulate people's behavior, both online and off. This is, of course, where Facebook fails spectacularly. But its not inconsistent with OP's words.
Even the “good people” part, which transitively reduces down to money too
I just don't understand how very smart people can so passionately believe in a closed loop. The metaverse will never immanentize until it is a protocol. A single company in charge will never exist in perpetuity unless you subscribe to PKD's "the Empire never ended".
"Nothing gold can stay" is the better measure of a single company espousing a single vision for all.
Protocols not products. Surely some of these very smart people at Meta see that their baby must be let go before it can touch the hearts and minds of all humans everywhere.
I don't think they're able.
The goal would be to retain their present prime position, transported into the Metaverse.
They don't have to own the Internet and its protocols to generate $44b in operating income every year.
By helping to establish the Metaverse, they'll aim to lay down a system that makes monetization possible, which they can take advantage of with their resources. It's quite simple and straight-forward.
When you're integral to establishing a new system, you get to help form its inner workings, you get influence in setting the rules for how it works.
Does good programmer == very smart?
Does good mechanic == very smart?
Part of the echo chamber bias on HN is that programmers are an elite class of citizen that is head-and-shoulder's above the rest in terms of intellect. I whole-heartedly disagree with this proposition because I've met many, many programmers who were absolute ding-dongs.
If you stop deifying programmers (& engineers) it becomes easier to see they are just average tradespeople who trade happens to be in extremely high demand right now. And then other things fall into place, like how they can fall for their own bubbles.
He also totaled his Mercedes when he got his first job out of college because he didn't know that you're supposed to check the oil levels and burned up the engine.
Nobody knows everything.
Also, there are more ways to contribute to progress than inventing new protocols. Big tech companies often release open source tools that take a life of their own. (Not always, but often enough.)
There are also research papers. Research is often not directly useful, but someone can use it to build something that is useful.
And don't discount imitators. Good ideas are often copied widely.
> ...
> I’ve been at the company longer than almost 70% of people,
That seems like a staggering amount of attrition
> I’ve been at the company longer than almost 70% of people
Apparently they’re not doing much? I would expect this from either a company rapidly scaling up, or one with almost everyone jumping ship.
They've said in recent earnings calls that attrition during the pandemic has been lower than normal. Lower than Meta even wants, since it means people who aren't aligned with the company are deciding to stay.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-faceboo...
[Edit: fixed calculation]
- They pay extremely well and offer great benefits to their engineers.
- They (not coincidentally) are able to hire great talent.
- That their platforms offer as much reach as any other company
None of this is new information and neither "great company" nor "does great things" follow from what's provided here.
facebook is great? Facebook is guilty of facilitating charlatans and grifters to hurt many more people.
That is the advertisers I assume as it doesn't appear to be the case for the actual users of the various FB products.
You tell me that and expect me to believe the rest? Get that bag, sure. But don't lie to yourself and don't lie to me about what you're supporting in the process.
I changed roles recently after a decade long term at a company I never thought I would work for. I left because I wanted some additional challenges that my current role didn't allow for as well as technologies outside what I helped grow. I left some flexibility, got offered new growth opportunities and will see what comes over the next couple of years.
Meta, Google, and Amazon, if you have any indication you are looking around, are companies that will reach out. I've talked with Amazon on and off for a long time. I have more respect for the teams, hiring managers, etc. from 10 years ago than any of them now. They will do a lot of things short of lying to get someone in the door. Google, yeah no. Their onsite policy as well as hoops you have to go through around open source (unless you are super high profile) just aren't worth it. Meta - even the recruiter had a hard time making excuses up as various scandals roll out.
For the rank and file, do what's right for you. For those with clout, you have leverage others may not have.
For now, for me, I'm dealing with a bit of a new world in domain I know. Retention will be based off growth and learning, not idiot perks to keep buts in seats as long as they can every day or the highest dollar possible.
Did you mean Apple here? Given that it's the only FAANG other than netflix you didn't mention and this seems like a much better description of Apple.
That’s… actually a bit scary.
Jk joined before covid, remembers the physical office, and currently gets some face-to-face time with teammates. Lincoln joined remotely and never got to meet his team. It seems like this was a big reason Lincoln left, and a factor in why Jk stays.
Bro if that were true then the end product of Facebook would be significantly different.
Seems like dude stays at this company that pays him well because, as he says, - that's not true - that's blatantly, superlatively not true - They let him play with the lives of billions of people - And they pay him well with good perks.
Yeah sorry JK Jensen, I read your post and all it says is you're greedy and avoidant. You love the great pay and great perks, and you lie to yourself about the impact you're having.
I'm sure this is true, but that's not the point. Lots of people chose to do wrong things due to the belief in their mission.
The Russians believe they're doing the right thing in Ukraine right now, does that justify their actions, the death and destruction? People always believe they're doing the right thing, whether or not it's actually true. Corporations just make it really easy to convince yourself that what you're doing has a positive impact because they have entire teams of people whose job it is to create that messaging.
We all have the capacity to lie to ourselves, and I'm sure getting treated like a "rockstar" helps to avoid reality, as the author points out.
If you still wonder why people work at Facebook, here's your answer. They, like so many others out there, believe the lies they manufacture themselves to perpetuate this system. They're hooked on their own supply.
I think the primary incentive is money; if it wasn't for the money they would work for some nonprofit or be self-employed but the thing is nor nonprofit nor self-employment can earn you the money that Facebook can pay you unless you really "make it" by being self-employed.
My assumption is majority of people are incentivized by money not by the cause but me personally I would rather try to "bring people closer together" by doing my thing than believe in corporate bullshit that Facebook feeds you with day in, day out.
There's the big social media silo and the Oculus and Whatsapp acquisitions - but nothing I look at and think "it would be cool to work on that". Just feels similar to some of the old guard like ebay - a dominant company that makes and I'm sure can pay well, but nothing I'd cut off my left arm to work on.
lol. i work on compilers at FB. it's like being a kid in a candy store.
edit: and in comparison to google (not sure about amazon and ms), it's a much more open culture regarding technical reporting.
maybe it's surprising, maybe it's not, but internal communications are done over workplace i.e. FB (so FB for FB). that means i can see all manner of technical writeups from all parts of the company, and i can immediately reach out to people (chat) and quickly learn about new things. just imagine, thousands and thousands of experts in their area, working on high tech, a chat away. and i'm not even just meaning SWE type people - i've chatted at length with some of the machinists at that support prototyping for oculus.
it's not utopian (often times you can't get an answer from someone when you need it) but it's pretty great. when/if i leave for another FAANG i will definitely miss that.
Social media is an inevitable result of the internet. Take a look at any social platform: Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, and Snap. All of these platforms suffer from similar issues to Facebook/Instagram. They all harbour disinformation, and all of these platforms come with considerable other downsides along with their main positive goal: connecting people.
I am not a Meta apologist. Meta and Zuckerberg, have made plenty of mistakes in their history. Facebook and Instagram happen to be the two biggest platforms (discounting YouTube and chat-only platforms). Perhaps _some_ of the issues we see on these platforms are inevitable outcomes as a result of human behaviour? I've spent some time diving into Facebook's efforts in moderation and safety. Despite all the negative coverage, they are one of the companies that has actually poured a lot of resources into these functions.
we simply do not have access to an "alternate reality where these products do not exist" (so talking about it is misleading at best) and to claim that platform issues are "inevitable outcomes ... of human behavior" is a dangerous fallacy; what we can talk about meaningfully is what these companies and platforms do and are doing, and no amount of specious talk can (or should) cover for the astounding negatives that they have imposed on society.
> The people at this company actually believe in the mission of bringing the world closer together.
> I have seen people at various levels of the company fight for the interests and safety of the billions of people who use our services
> people who rely on us to be good stewards of their data
That being said, I can completely respect staying for an intellectually stimulating environment, loving the content of your job, awesome compensation (autonomy, pay, etc.) and a company culture that feels comfortable to you.
As other comments have said it feels comparable to someone working at the digital equivalent of a Big Tobacco company and sharing how what they are doing is beneficial.
I would love to be checked on this which is why I am commenting: am I too in a bubble? Is my reaction to the perceived righteousness of Meta too much of me being overly anti-Meta?
P.S. sincere thanks to the post's author for putting their views out there -- although I disagree with their stance I applaud them for feeling fulfilled and caring about what their company does
Listening to the self-righteous drivel they ram down our throats during orientation has made me literally and physically gag on multiple occasions. It's painfully self-serving, and it has made me dislike the company more than I did from the outside.
I 100% see social networking as digital tobacco, and I take pleasure in my other projects that I think are more helpful for mankind (or at least not negative). But Meta pays really well, and it's that pay that will allow me to pursue my other hobbies and interests.
Have I sold my soul? Probably. In a year I'll see if it was worth it.
That's my opinion. My FU here is not a reflection of who you are as a person, but how I feel. You made me read you blog post, so my response is FU.