Ask HN: Do you refuse to work for certain companies or industries?
37 comments
I will never work for Facebook. I think it's the most evil product and company that exists and that it has hurt humanity significantly more than it has helped.
That doesn't mean each individual part of FB is evil. I'm sure there are some good-willing people and a great projects going on inside. But I could never live with myself supporting a product like this, even just by association.
That doesn't mean each individual part of FB is evil. I'm sure there are some good-willing people and a great projects going on inside. But I could never live with myself supporting a product like this, even just by association.
> I think it's the most evil product
You think Facebook has a more evil product than, say from the military industrial complex, tabacco or big oil? Their products kill people literally every day.
You think Facebook has a more evil product than, say from the military industrial complex, tabacco or big oil? Their products kill people literally every day.
> big oil? Their products kill people literally every day.
Does oil kill more people than lack of oil though? How many people would starve without synthetic fertilizers (made from oil) and without oil-powered farming equipment?
Does oil kill more people than lack of oil though? How many people would starve without synthetic fertilizers (made from oil) and without oil-powered farming equipment?
Yes, I personally think so. It's a difficult comparison because the effects of Facebook are not obvious physically, like e.g. tobacco is. That makes it even more dangerous because it seems safe. But the negative effects of mental health and misinformation (politics, health, etc) also indirectly kill people or make them miserable, it's just not a direct association that's easy to measure. These effects probably have a larger negative impact on the world overall than something simple with obvious effects like tobacco.
Its not about more/less evil and ranking, its a simple question of would you refuse to work for X.
I've been approached by FB recruiters, or their bots probably, and simply ignore them. The way I determine a gut reaction answer to "would you work for X?" is how you would feel answering when someone asks what you do for a living. I'd feel queasy saying I worked for FB because I feel that they indirectly cause massive harm to society for profits.
I've been approached by FB recruiters, or their bots probably, and simply ignore them. The way I determine a gut reaction answer to "would you work for X?" is how you would feel answering when someone asks what you do for a living. I'd feel queasy saying I worked for FB because I feel that they indirectly cause massive harm to society for profits.
Fb has been sending me a lot of interview requests for product manager roles lately, it kind of feels like they're looking for a patsy to "take the fall" on their past practices I must say... Even though the salaries look good, I wouldn't want to have to go in front of congress and testify for decisions I never made on the job. Hard pass. :(
I also got a call years ago from a company once to develop pr0n web sites for a pretty good annual salary (around 200k base), but turned them down after my interviewer kept laughing during the interview... I felt the work environment would be too distracting on a daily basis... :/
I also got a call years ago from a company once to develop pr0n web sites for a pretty good annual salary (around 200k base), but turned them down after my interviewer kept laughing during the interview... I felt the work environment would be too distracting on a daily basis... :/
Top of my list is staying away from 3rd party recruiters. They're like a stereotypical used car salesmen in my opinion.
I don't really keep a solid list, but evaluate stuff when I see a posting or get approached. Off the top of my head I stay away from defense for the bureaucracy; sites with a content/product focus that I wouldn't enjoy working with, like porn, recreational drugs, or tobacco; FANNG because I'm not putting up with their nonsense interviews and wasting my time studying stuff I will likely never use; most startups because I don't care about "like Stripe for X" projects, I don't trust equity compensation, and I want a stable job.
I don't really keep a solid list, but evaluate stuff when I see a posting or get approached. Off the top of my head I stay away from defense for the bureaucracy; sites with a content/product focus that I wouldn't enjoy working with, like porn, recreational drugs, or tobacco; FANNG because I'm not putting up with their nonsense interviews and wasting my time studying stuff I will likely never use; most startups because I don't care about "like Stripe for X" projects, I don't trust equity compensation, and I want a stable job.
It is easy to avoid certain companies (facebook etc), but it is quite hard to avoid third party recruiters, unless you have some unique skill that is in demand and you can set your own rules/pay etc. One of the better places I worked at, used these third party firms. I tried to get them not to use those, but it was a non starter. I understand why they do it though, it is convenient for them. Same story in many, many companies.
I wish there were companies that take on third party shitty firms. It would be a much better thing to solve for the society (and there is a lot of money in it too) instead of building yet another project management or photo sharing app.
I wish there were companies that take on third party shitty firms. It would be a much better thing to solve for the society (and there is a lot of money in it too) instead of building yet another project management or photo sharing app.
I don't know. There are some companies that have their own recruiters. It seems like mostly smaller companies.
In my experience, we have used third party recruiters at my company and the quality of the candidates were pretty terrible at times. Some of the recruiters were giving interviewees answers to out common questions. My experience on the other side seems to reinforce this - apparently I'm a great fit for everything...
In my experience, we have used third party recruiters at my company and the quality of the candidates were pretty terrible at times. Some of the recruiters were giving interviewees answers to out common questions. My experience on the other side seems to reinforce this - apparently I'm a great fit for everything...
I started my career in the defense industry and I try to avoid it now. On a philosophical level, I wasn't totally comfortable designing weapon systems with the express purpose of killing people. But also on a practical level, the defense industry can be extremely fickle (programs get funded or cancelled based on politics or the endless mergers), slow moving, and is pretty old fashioned with the work style, pay, and perks we take for granted in tech.
I have stayed away from the industry (in software roles at least) too. It seems so overly bureaucratic and puts process over production. Plus much of the stuff is compartmentalized so you can't see the bigger picture - I'm a big picture kind of guy.
Yes it is pretty heavily top-down since the programs are so huge!
I did have opportunities to work on some very interesting projects and get to travel to remote tests sites which was fun at the beginning of my career, but I'm not sure if I really want to be doing that much anymore!
I did have opportunities to work on some very interesting projects and get to travel to remote tests sites which was fun at the beginning of my career, but I'm not sure if I really want to be doing that much anymore!
I won't work for gambling companies, Nestle, or Chinese or Israeli companies. I don't think I'm particularly "moral" I'm just lucky to work in an industry where you can be picky about your employer.
I have not consciously done so, but whenever recruiters have called me for positions within finance sector I was never able to give a firm commitment to applying in that sector. I have made quite a monetary loss because of that. I don't know why I do that. May be because I was never comfortable working in big cities and in those high rise glass buildings. I prefer country side living and non-flashy offices that do not destroy the surroundings. And I prefer walking to office. Living in bigger cities robs you of that luxury.
Absolutely. Have done and will do in the future. Rejected jobs from surveillance-companies, ad-tech companies etc.
But I do not try to put myself on a higher moral horse than people who would take those jobs. I can say no because I have two things in place; a moral compass and most importantly; a privileged position in the World where I can afford to say no.
But I do not try to put myself on a higher moral horse than people who would take those jobs. I can say no because I have two things in place; a moral compass and most importantly; a privileged position in the World where I can afford to say no.
While I have the option, yes.
There’s a few Rupert Murdoch owned companies recruiting where I’d be a good fit with the roles, they are one of the few companies building teams with the technology I enjoy working with which is in demand in a few countries but not the one I live in leaving the Murdoch owned companies one of a very small number of options.
Unless I become unemployed and desperate to pay the bills I reluctantly ignore any company owned by him despite actively looking for work.
Similarly gambling, it destroys life’s and the gamification prays on the vulnerable. Gambling provides no benefit to society. Unless I was unemployed with no other options approaching financial hardship, gambling is a hard no.
There’s a few Rupert Murdoch owned companies recruiting where I’d be a good fit with the roles, they are one of the few companies building teams with the technology I enjoy working with which is in demand in a few countries but not the one I live in leaving the Murdoch owned companies one of a very small number of options.
Unless I become unemployed and desperate to pay the bills I reluctantly ignore any company owned by him despite actively looking for work.
Similarly gambling, it destroys life’s and the gamification prays on the vulnerable. Gambling provides no benefit to society. Unless I was unemployed with no other options approaching financial hardship, gambling is a hard no.
I won't be working with software houses if it can be helped. Sure, some of them place you in companies that actually produce software used and sold to people.
But whenever I've built internal-facing software, it's always been a mix of politics, budget constraints and disingenious requirements that often frustrates me.
But whenever I've built internal-facing software, it's always been a mix of politics, budget constraints and disingenious requirements that often frustrates me.
I can imagine working at a company that does things I consider wrong, and treating it in my head as a game of infiltration and reconnaissance. But there are things I find so personally repulsive that I could never, like ad tech or data brokering.
One rule I have is that I won’t work for companies that don’t charge money directly for products/services. No companies that are revenueless, no companies that are ad-supported.
I also avoid anyone without a crystal clear path to profitability. Like selling “premium memberships” that nobody buys and hoping to get acquired isn’t good enough for me. I want to see every customer getting their wallet out.
Working at an unsustainable business isn’t for me anymore.
I also avoid anyone without a crystal clear path to profitability. Like selling “premium memberships” that nobody buys and hoping to get acquired isn’t good enough for me. I want to see every customer getting their wallet out.
Working at an unsustainable business isn’t for me anymore.
I used to think it would be cool to work in defense.
That was before I learned how often poor and innocent people are killed in drone strikes.
Now I would never go anywhere near that industry.
That was before I learned how often poor and innocent people are killed in drone strikes.
Now I would never go anywhere near that industry.
I do, and it's been tested as well. I won't ever work in gambling, or the "gaming" industry as it is euphemistically being called in India these days. I receive a linkedIn message nearly every week from recruiters for lucrative jobs in gambling startups, and I've told them all the same thing: no matter how much you pay me, I won't work in gambling.
Same. I am aware that many, if not all, companies are not pure and at the end aim to increase their shareholders profits. Some even build products that can be used to do evil, but for me the gambling industry is all evil, there is no good use for their products.
I will also avoid the more evil spyware companies like the Israeli NSO, but will work (although never did yet) for some "defense" companies even if their main business is killing
I will also avoid the more evil spyware companies like the Israeli NSO, but will work (although never did yet) for some "defense" companies even if their main business is killing
After working in Indian IT companies for approx 10 years, I would never work for consulting/Outsourcing company
I keep a list. There are various reasons for these, ranging from petty and personal to Global Evil:
Google, Disney, the New York Times Co., Salesforce, Amazon, Facebook, Bank of America, Equifax, United Airlines, WeWork, Blizzard, Marriott, Coca-Cola, Basecamp, and anything headquartered in China or owned by a parent that is.
Google, Disney, the New York Times Co., Salesforce, Amazon, Facebook, Bank of America, Equifax, United Airlines, WeWork, Blizzard, Marriott, Coca-Cola, Basecamp, and anything headquartered in China or owned by a parent that is.
After interning in the defense industry (twice, both as a contractor and a government employee), I’m committed to not returning. Thankfully in CS I have many options, some of my peers in MechE or Aero struggle with their similar opinions as a large portion of jobs in those fields are defense jobs.
Before stating the bloody obvious that it's a luxury position, I don't want to work for any company who doesn't have a positive social impact. This could be in any form, I just don't believe in the "it should all be profit for the shareholders" attitude.
I haven't tested my mettle on this one, but probably the tobacco industry. I can't imagine working for an industry that kills people like that. (Please no morality Olympics - this one feels unambiguously personally objectionable, which is why I picked it out of several examples)
I had trepidation before I went to work at a marketing company, it was only when I found out they do tradeshows, and not the scam ridden direct marketing, that I decided to give it a go. 15 years wasn't too bad of a run.
When I was graduating from college, Marlboro offered me a job in their management training program to become a manager of something. I turned that down despite they offered me the most money of all my offers.
I do FB ads but have always refused mobile games and gambling. It preys on people with mental illness, most whales are not rich.
I am open to changing my mind, but currently I don't see myself working for Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Amazon.
I refuse to work with all of them.
Until I have to pay my rent.
So, to me, people saying that won't work for Rio or Fakebook or Tesla or whoever, it means they/we/I that have that luxury.
I tend to think of it like I think of global warming or any other problem of capitalism and crimes against humanity -- your job/lifestyle has some (tiny) effect, but if you actually want to have a different world, you have to do the real work of changing 'the system' -- e.g. in the US, that might be pushing for publicly-funded elections, for public media, against dark money, for rich people to pay taxes, etc.
You work for Wall Street? Madison Avenue? K Street?
eh -- sucks for your conscience, if you have one, but it's not making much difference if/when you decide to cash out and become a virtue-signaling city-hippie -- someone will gladly take your place.
I think a good parallel is thinking of the 'benevolent' (Northern) bankers and the 'evil' (Southern) slaveowners. My reading of history suggests the bankers were at least as evil as the slaveowners.
So next time we're lauding Tesla and condemning Chevron...
Until I have to pay my rent.
So, to me, people saying that won't work for Rio or Fakebook or Tesla or whoever, it means they/we/I that have that luxury.
I tend to think of it like I think of global warming or any other problem of capitalism and crimes against humanity -- your job/lifestyle has some (tiny) effect, but if you actually want to have a different world, you have to do the real work of changing 'the system' -- e.g. in the US, that might be pushing for publicly-funded elections, for public media, against dark money, for rich people to pay taxes, etc.
You work for Wall Street? Madison Avenue? K Street?
eh -- sucks for your conscience, if you have one, but it's not making much difference if/when you decide to cash out and become a virtue-signaling city-hippie -- someone will gladly take your place.
I think a good parallel is thinking of the 'benevolent' (Northern) bankers and the 'evil' (Southern) slaveowners. My reading of history suggests the bankers were at least as evil as the slaveowners.
So next time we're lauding Tesla and condemning Chevron...
I can see where you're coming from, and this is kind of why I mentioned
> ...I'm no saint myself! I work in the travel industry and ask myself to what degree I enable massive CO2 emissions for people's leisure, wasteful businesses having in person meetings that they probably don't need to etc etc.
That said, I don't think I agree that just because you not taking a job at Rio Tinto or Facebook or whatever won't change the world, you might as well take the job, or that someone else will gladly take your place.
Some of these companies are overwhelmingly likely to, due to their controversy, not attract as good talent at as good rates as they otherwise would, and that's a good thing IMO.
> ...I'm no saint myself! I work in the travel industry and ask myself to what degree I enable massive CO2 emissions for people's leisure, wasteful businesses having in person meetings that they probably don't need to etc etc.
That said, I don't think I agree that just because you not taking a job at Rio Tinto or Facebook or whatever won't change the world, you might as well take the job, or that someone else will gladly take your place.
Some of these companies are overwhelmingly likely to, due to their controversy, not attract as good talent at as good rates as they otherwise would, and that's a good thing IMO.
yes, i think we agree that, at least in theory, companies with bad reps could find it more difficult to find people, find the best people, find people for as low a salaries as they would like, etc.
otoh, i think you could just as easily argue that these companies are attracting the absolute best talent, paying them the highest salaries, and being happy to do so -- because their business model enjoys insane profits.
employees might have to leave a bit more of their conscience at the door, but there are all sorts of ways to justify that to oneself.
what is the 'absolute best talent' for a company with a less-than-stellar reputation?
really, it's probably the same employee as for most companies -- someone whose beliefs/behaviors most closely model the expected and ideal behavior of corporations -- sociopaths. serial killers, even -- as long as they didn't kill their fellow employees. it's expensive to find talent in this market!
it reminds me of the lady, Lucy Hughes, of marketing firm, Initiative -- in the movie, The Corporation, she's tells how a friend asked her, "Lucy, is (manipulating children with your advertising) ethical?"
She says, basically, "Well I don't know if it's ethical or not, but at Initiative our job is to move product."
:-D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQYsk-8dWg&t=4090s
otoh, i think you could just as easily argue that these companies are attracting the absolute best talent, paying them the highest salaries, and being happy to do so -- because their business model enjoys insane profits.
employees might have to leave a bit more of their conscience at the door, but there are all sorts of ways to justify that to oneself.
what is the 'absolute best talent' for a company with a less-than-stellar reputation?
really, it's probably the same employee as for most companies -- someone whose beliefs/behaviors most closely model the expected and ideal behavior of corporations -- sociopaths. serial killers, even -- as long as they didn't kill their fellow employees. it's expensive to find talent in this market!
it reminds me of the lady, Lucy Hughes, of marketing firm, Initiative -- in the movie, The Corporation, she's tells how a friend asked her, "Lucy, is (manipulating children with your advertising) ethical?"
She says, basically, "Well I don't know if it's ethical or not, but at Initiative our job is to move product."
:-D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQYsk-8dWg&t=4090s
yes
Today I was approached about a job with Rio Tinto, the miner who knowingly and deliberately blew up Juukan Gorge, the only inland site in Australia with evidence of continuous human occupation for over 46,000 years, including through the last Ice Age. (the importance of this site cannot be overstated - it would be comparable to a mining company knowingly and deliberately blowing up the Cosquer, Lascaux or Chauvet Caves in France, the ones with ~30 000 year old stone age paintings in them - imagine the outrage that would cause)
You hardly need to be some kind of bleeding heart activist to not want to even consider working for an organization like that.
Do you refuse to work for certain companies or industries? Why, or why not?
I should mention I'm no saint myself! I work in the travel industry and ask myself to what degree I enable massive CO2 emissions for people's leisure, wasteful businesses having in person meetings that they probably don't need to etc etc.