In the ethically murky ganglion of our global society, there is no way to ever participate without contributing to some abstract form of harm to somebody. I intuitively agree with the somewhat simplified final proposal of the article that given this web of inextricable unintended consequences, our ethical target should be to distance ourselves from “the stink.” To take a utilitarian outlook, we can attempt a rough estimate of whether our contributions to the position would have a net positive impact on balance, despite their inevitable negative consequences. Additional complexity falls in to play surrounding the question of whether someone else would just take our position if we were to opt out on ethical grounds, although I find this to be a weak counterargument given that if enough people agree with your ethical stance, then at least the supply of talent for such positions would be greatly diminished.
As for my case, I believe that Facebook’s net impact on global society is deeply in the red. I also believe that the majority of its continued activities are contributing to further sewing chaos, discontent, and isolation worldwide, regardless of their intentions or mission statement. In addition, I am in a position of immense privilege with the education I have received and skillsets I have acquired, giving me the choice, and I would argue the moral imperative, to simply choose an alternative position that results in a better cost-benefit. However, if it were truly my only possible job opportunity, as my only way to support myself and loved ones, I would be compelled to take the position at least temporarily.
