"We will monitor all our users and sell their meta data to advertisers, but we draw the line at Meta tracking our mouse clicks!"
this post was submitted on 12 May 2026
398 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
85068 readers
4376 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
WAAH!
How's it feel, motherfuckers!?
Do Meta employees tell people where they work, or do they hide it the way people hide that they're MAGA. You know, because who would want to fuck a Meta employee?
The people I know who are MAGA don't usually try to hide it... I wish they would...
They don't hide it because they make bank
people hide that they’re MAGA
Where are you that they're hiding?
Shrug. Meta employees make bank.
Dunno how attractive they are viewed as, because everyone there I personally know were already married before they joined Meta.
Meta employees make bank
That seems to be all that matters to anyone these days. “So what if I assisted the world’s biggest spy operation. I made a lot of money doing it.”
Oh you work for Zuckerberg? Fuck you.
I wonder how many of those people have a choice. The job market might not afford people with their credentials many options for decent enough pay to sustain a dignified livelihood.
Some may be callous, some may actively think that what the company is doing is good and right, but I don't think generalising such sentiments over all employees is fair. The system is fucked; don't blame the victims.
(Of course, you'd need a kind of social safety net to catch the employees if you want to dismantle the company. Just destroying the old without preparing the new would be counterproductive.)
Maybe 15 years ago that was true. Now, fuck them, they know what they are working for. If they want redemption they can quit and join open source communities.
join open source communities.
How much do those pay? Enough for rent and groceries? Send your kids to college maybe?
Choice is a luxury not everyone can afford, and the job market is fucked up in some places, particularly with things like dependency on your employer for healthcare and stability concerns. Yes, the cage may be gilded, but I doubt that it's empty.
Attack the system that binds them. Build a socisl safety net that they can trust to catch them and see to their necessities*. Make it a purely binary choice between excess and morality. Whoever continues to sell their soul can burn with the rest of the company.
*The catch with many unemployment benefit systems is that they only fully apply if you are fired without fault, not if you quit, unless you can prove specific circumstances such as health issues or workplace toxicity, which can be quite a hurdle. Whatever safety we offer has to lower the barrier for those circumstances and permit ethical concerns as justified reason to leave.
Yes that’ll feed the kids!
These jobs are some of the most high paying in the country, these people aren't starving, they are upper middle class/swells to start with overwhelmingly, not broke, and millionaires.
Goodness that’s a lot of conclusions about other people, all at once.
Those are well known statistics. Microsoft for instance created more millionaires from workers than any company ever. Their employees, the software engineers and the like, are in high demand and make a lot a lot of money.
Is your argument that they deserve the pay so it doesn't matter how they get it? They are selfish, and likely over extend themselves financially for ego and status. Apparently you are saying the only way they can be happy is if they are wealthy? What a morally bankrupt philosophy.
The fuck are you getting that from? I didn't talk about wealth, nor happiness, nor ego and status, nor how any of those things justify working for a horrifyingly evil company.
I talked about a dignified livelihood. You know, being able to pay rent, utilities, groceries, gas and put a little aside so medical emergencies or unexpected expenses don't trap you in irrecoverable debt.
Is your argument "People should rather starve"? Is the only ethical existence one outside of exploitative, fucked up systems?
I'm sure that many are indeed there because of the money. My argument is that condemning the employees wholesale is likely to catch people that don't deserve this vilification. My suggestion is to direct that rage against the fucked-up system that both enables exploitative dependencies on employment and allows companies like Meta to exist in the first place.
You think the choices are work for Meta or starve? Its Raytheon or be homeless?
Fuck out of here with that nonsense. If you trade morals for money, dont be surprised when people call you out as morally bankrupt. Isn't that the trade that was made? Grow up and own your shit.
You think the choices are work for Meta or starve?
To the same degree that a livelihood equals wealth: Not really, but it seems like nuance is out of stock anyway. If we can only talk in absolutes, then sure, let's go with that.
I don't know the job situation wherever these employees live. You take for granted that there are plenty of jobs available, but given the current tide of layoffs and hiring stops, I'm not so confident.
I know people (my wife, some family, some close friends; some EU, some US; some tech, some other sectors) struggling to find a job, for all their credentials, because all their applications to just about any vaguely applicable position within the area they can reach are rejected (and for some of them, there are few positions to begin with). If they got a job anywhere that would pay them a living wage, they could hardly afford to turn it down.
It's even worse in the US, where healthcare may be tied to your employer. One (western US) friend with chronic health issues had to stick with a toxic job for way too long because they genuinely couldn't afford to quit. Hence, my point is that there's a very real chance that some employees are trapped in their job, however gilded the cage may be.
Many employees may have the luxury of choice and choose money over morals, true. For some, the choice may have been a question of stability. If there was a reliable social security system to catch anyone that quits, I'd even agree that they all had the choice.
But as things are, I worry that painting all employees the same brush erases nuance and covers up the ugly systemic issues that enable the exploitation of users and employees alike, which we justly hate Meta for.
But then, I guess nuanced looks at contributing factors are hard and calling people morally bankrupt is more satisfying than acknowledging the morally expensive system that bankrupts people in the first place, morally and financially.
There is nuance, but some companies are far past that. Meta is one of them. Theres a bunch of other examples. I dont think walmart employees are morally bankrupt, however, because the Walton's are. There has to be a line somewhere and some companies have caused too much harm on too large a scale.
There is nuance, but some companies are far past that.
The nuance isn't about the fucked-upness of the company, but about the humans. The company is beyond redemption, no doubt.
There has to be a line somewhere
Why? Why should we decide a point at which it's okay to dehumanise people? What do we gain by simplifying economic and social complexities down to "they're all just evil"?
Again, I care about fixing the system that allows things like Meta to exist (because cutting one head won't kill the hydra) and trap employees (Meta and elsewhere) in fucked up dynamics where "just leave" isn't a viable option.
If your necessities are taken care of either way and the choice is purely between excess wealth and ethical responsibility, sure, anyone who chooses to enrich themselves at the expense of others is a dick. If the company is torn down and they lose their job, no tear will be shed. But that basic security needs to exist in order to enable ethical decisions and put the onus on the employees for continuing to support a fucked up stain on human dignity.
Well evil is a ridiculous word, but yes they are immoral people the way I see it. That doesn't mean I want them executed or put in prison. We should simply call something wrong when we think its wrong. Those people are hopefully going to grow and learn. I'm not going to give them praise or any social benefit until they do so, however.
All I'm doing is signalling that I disagree with those peoples life choices on a moral level. I don't see why that's such a cruel thing.
I disagree with those peoples life choices on a moral level.
My point is that not all may have a choice, because quitting your job can be scary in the most stable of times, let alone when people are being laid off left and right while small businesses get churned under. "I want to afford life" is a life choice only in the immediate, literal sense of choosing to live.
Hence my proposition to build a system that allows them to quit without jeopardising healthcare coverage, livelihood, all the things that make a person stick with a bad job.
Whoever stays when they don't need to is definitely in the wrong.
Everyone has a choice, this isn't slave labor. The most common argument I hear from these people is "I'm used to the amount I make, and I can't go back now." And again, they are not choosing between working at Meta and "being able to afford life". These are supposed to be smart people, yet they actually can't see any other choice?
Ego and greed drive people to these positions that they think they deserve, there is no moral justification here. Its a perfect example of the fuck-you-get-mine lifestyle that America promotes.
I'm not shocked that the people who work there have convinced themselves they are good people, but I am surprised at how many people on the outside will defend them.
I think you're missing the core point: You assume finding a different job is easy for everyone, or even just possible for everyone. I don't think that's true. More accurately, I know that's not true.
To quit without a new job lined up puts you in a precarious position, like jumping off the edge and hoping there's somewhere to land. If you can't be sure, you would naturally hesitate. That's why I've been saying to create a safety net that allows them to jump off anyway because they know they'll be caught and find their way to solid footing.
Those who could easily find stable employment that covers their expenses elsewhere absolutely should. I'm not defending them.
I'm defending those that you overlook because it's easier to condemn collectively.
I'm not really convinced. I've quit a job for moral reasons without anything else lined up, and I have a house, kids, and cars. These Meta employees make at least triple what I do, but somehow I have more financial freedom than they do? Explain that part to me.
My guess is simply that I'm comfortable cutting expenses while most of these Meta employees aren't. I dont understand why anyone would rather break their morals than cut expenses. Thats why I said they are greedy.
Okay, this got a lot longer than planned, so let me offer a summary of my goal first:
I'm mainly trying to argue that we should blame the root property (greed) and the enabling factors (system fostering fuck-you-got-mine), rather than a secondary property potentially arising from it, and to propose a solution thay would make that "potentially" irrelevant.
I've quit a job for moral reasons without anything else lined up, and I have a house, kids, and cars.
That's great and I love that for you.
But I can tell you for a fact that not everyone can do that. My wife had to quit hers for health reasons, and though she thankfully gets unemployment benefits (60% of her previous income here in Germany), it isn't enough to cover her share of the rent, utilities and other regular expenses. We don't have a house, we have a singular car we're paying lease for (she needed it to get to her job, I use public transport), we don't have kids.
If she hadn't had good cause to quit, the benefits would have been suspended. If she didn't get public healthcare through those benefits, the cost of her treatment would send us into debt.
She's been applying for everything even remotely related to her qualifications (both because she risks losing her benefits otherwise and because those 60% are bad and she'd like to get a proper pay again). It's not that she doesn't have any qualifications, just that there's not a lot of openings and presumably many applicants around here. Or maybe whatever AI companies use to screen applications decides she's not a good fit? No clue. Most companies don't even respond. The rest send a polite rejection letter that they went with someone else.
If I now quit my job for moral reasons (which I thankfully have little cause for), I'd be trading our future for a chance at a slightly worse and a risk of a much worse future. If I can't find a new job in the time between handing in my notice and my last paycheck, I probably won't get unemployment pay for a while, and we'd be living off of, at best, 30% of the income we planned our life with. We already don't have much in savings to begin with due to an unrelated instance of life fucking us over.
I also know people from the US that stuck or are sticking with a job they hate because they can't find any other job that'll sponsor their healthcare, and they can't afford to go without due to chronic issues.
These Meta employees make at least triple what I do, but somehow I have more financial freedom than they do? Explain that part to me.
Financial freedom doesn't strictly scale with income. If you earn more, you're probably also more comfortable taking on debt (car, house) or higher expenses (like an expensive school for your kids). Finding a cheaper place to live isn't always easy (the housing market is atrocious in some places, and I know that we've been looking in vain), particularly if it's in range of decently paying employers; you may well need the car to get to work; taking your kids out of a school you can no longer afford is probably a bad idea both for their social development and their future prospects. And healthcare is still a fucked up thing that can pose a great risk.
Again, for many of the employees, there may well be concessions they can make that they choose not to, putting their own luxury before the ethics (or lack thereof) of Meta's business practices. I'm not denying that nor defending them. I'm contending that not all will have that choice, and that we shouldn't throw them under the bus with the rest when there is a more accurate option:
The root cause that makes the evil ones evil is their selfishness and greed; that is what we should condemn. It applies to plenty more people than just employees coming up with whatever justification to shut up their conscience. The remedy for this would be to strip them of the excess that keeps them there, which isn't exactly trivial.
The contributing factor that allows Meta and other such companies to exist and do such evil is an economic and social power balance that has been steadily and politically shifted ever more towards corporate dominance. There needs to be a counterweight that enables workers to do the right thing, no matter their circumstances. Social security doesn't (just) help the unemployed, disabled, or other people that can't work, it also shores up the bargaining position of those who do work and want to work for fair conditions and with a clean conscience.
Once such a security exists, the question of separating the greedy ones from those staying out of dependency or insecurity becomes much easier. The lower the hurdles for leaving, the less of an excuse for those who stay.
And if Meta was then torn down, the question of stripping the greedy from their unjust gains would be resolved too.
Hence: Fuck greed, fuck the system that enables it and fuck whoever defends that system.
The working class needs jobs. Capitalists own the means of production; these means require the workers. Are you arguing that some capitalists are good/bad? They all ravage the world and exploit labor as the capitalist system requires.
This always happens.
A company that acts without empathy for their customers will invariably act the same towards their employees. This is because the behavior is usually driven by personalities in leadership that (dis)function this way rather universally. Add the fact that empathy limits one's ability to make money (in this economy), and that psychological modeling is a thing in the workplace, and it's easy to see how we keep getting into trouble like this.
There really isn't an "at the right hand of the devil" scenario. Everyone is in his path, especially if you're close.
empathy limits one’s ability to make money (in this economy)
Idk if there's any economy where greed and empathy work well together
I think it's possible (theoretical at least) that greed can be harnessed in specific ways to do good and even empathetic works; it's a potent motivator after all. IMO, there's likely a balance. But the overarching market and financial governance can't ever be on the side of greed for that to work. Otherwise, the people in power pull all the stops and the experiment is rendered moot.
OK, so, I hate Meta and offer no sympathy. But, if I were hypothetically in that scenario, I would work very hard to develop a keyboard centric workflow. Sure, they can key log everything, but it's going to be way more annoying for them to go through tons and tons of TAB strokes.
There will be generated summaries - the LLMs don’t care about input format
If I was in that scenario I’d us AI to drive my workstation and only talk to the ai. Feed the ai garbage ai training data.
They take sceenshots and use ml to summarize segments of activity probably
This is kinda funny because I'm getting into Fluent Search (Windows) and (trying to make) Hints (Linux) (work), so the company wouldn't be able to collect as much data on me if my workplace were to start doing this for any reason (though that's not the reason I'm trying these programs).
wow, that fluent search is basically the kde plasma's app launcher
Yeah, it's quite good! It's too bad that it's not cross-platform, but I think it performs best out of the open-source trifecta of Wox Launcher and Flow Launcher, all of which I've personally tried.
I would just buy a mouse jiggler and flood the training data with junk inputs. Leave your computer on over night with the jiggler going.
Unfortunately that is almost certainly detectable too
Not to mention there is more than likely a clock in/out system that controls the tracking information
Can you install a second and third mouse as well?