Meta violates my personal code of ethics
I don’t consider myself overly ethically nit-picky. For example, I work in defense technology, which many Stanford students have objections to. (Note that I don’t work in this space in spite of ethical reservations but rather because I find it actually aligns well with certain aspects of my ideology and personal ethics system.)
That being said, Meta violates principles I feel particularly strongly about and have deep convictions on. Meta has played a critical role in the perpetuation of misinformation and extremism, has exacerbated the radicalization of youth, and deliberately encourages addictive behaviors to win the attention war.
These issues are the fundamental causes of so many of society’s “evils” and have life or death consequences– whether world leaders get elected, wars are escalated, policies concerning the future of our planet or a whole population’s economic welfare are passed.
Rejecting the reading’s “distance from harm” framework
The reading offers a framework for deciding “would I work at ethically murky company X”: you don’t have to ignore the stain to accept the job. You can choose to acknowledge the issue, then justify your decision based on distance from harm. If my role was far from algorithm tweaking, the “stink” wouldn’t get quite so close to my office.
By this framework, I could easily accept a role at Meta whose responsibilities align better with my personal code of ethics. However, I fundamentally reject this framework. It still seems like the ostrich plunging its head into the sand while the lion charges, knowing its death is imminent but choosing to ignore the psychological burden of the threat.
Proposing a new framework: moral obligation to leverage all available platforms for impact
I’d much rather use a different framework, which the reading touches on slightly – considering whether a role offers a platform for real impact, which I believe I have a moral obligation and responsibility to leverage.
It’s undeniable that Meta is one of the most influential companies in the world. This platform will exist regardless of whether I decide that working at Meta suits my personal ethical fancies.
If we’re talking about balancing “duties” as the reading mentions– such as duty to honesty vs. duty to provide for one’s family– then I believe that I have a duty to take advantage of the platforms available to me and to use them for good.
So would I work for Meta?
It’s professionally unexciting (I don’t think I’ll ever work for such a large company, as I prefer early-stage teams) and violates my personal moral code. However, one of my strongest-held core beliefs is that I have a moral obligation to do all in my power to leverage the platforms I have access to in order to make a positive impact on the world.
Thus, if faced with the chance to work at Meta, if it is a role where I will have the agency and sway necessary to do something meaningful, I’d probably take it.
