Currently at Meta. This place has always been a bit ruthless in the 8+ years I've been around to observe. But the article is accurate.
Never seen people this universally fed up. I thought tech was too cushy for it to happen, but there's serious collective action posting out in the open all over the place.
It's also never been more cutthroat, backstabby, scope-grabby, political, and uncertain. There seems to be a flywheel in effect where top talent exits and those who will drown each other to stay afloat are all that remain. It's somehow leapfrogging Oracle's culture even.
I also work at Meta. The chaos and instability is awful. But I think they could fire pretty much everyone and the ads business would still continue to grow at nearly the same rate.
I think it will take a very long time for leadership to feel the effects of what they've done.
> I also work at Meta. The chaos and instability is awful. But I think they could fire pretty much everyone and the ads business would still continue to grow at nearly the same rate.
I spent 5 years at Facebook (2013-18), and I can guarantee you that if you fired the sales teams, revenue would take a pretty large hit.
More generally my friend who was there till last year (at a pretty senior manager level) said that once the AAP thing happened with Apple, it got really really nasty.
Like, every company tends towards the median of it's geographies over time but Facebook was a pretty special place to work at back in the day, and it looks like a lot of that has been lost now.
Some Facebook ad forums have gone from frustration to extreme hyperbole (e.g. death penalty for Meta execs). The "you're doing it wrong" replies have also shifted to more of "having the same problem". We would like to advertise again on Meta, but it looks quite scary to start again. We've even received two bills from Meta, though we have not advertised since 2020. Contested one and got a discount, the other was smaller and I didn't contest. Trying to disconnect everything currently.
I'm guessing you have 0 insight into the work that the ads, ranking, apps, and sales teams do to keep the gravy train flowing and even expanding 30% every year. If Meta fired even just half the ranking workers, the recommendation models (both ads and feeds) would very quickly become stale and start shedding many Fortune 500 companies worth of revenue.
When I read parent say "pretty much everyone", I assume the hypothetically not-cut people are still a thousands large skeleton crew keeping the cash cow fed and happy. What did you think they meant? 3 execs and an janitor?
I'm sure whatever your role at facebook is, it is very important. There are people who recognize how valuable your contributions were/are/will be. You probably won't find that validation on HN.
> There seems to be a flywheel in effect where top talent exits and those who will drown each other to stay afloat are all that remain.
This is the death spiral of a company. Things start to get bad, the best people with the most external options leave, which makes things worse... the people left behind are either those with no other options, or people who strive in the backstabbing environment of a company in decline.
It's easy to keep employees happy with good pay and benefits and a nice work environment, as long as the work is reasonably ethical and life-affirming and generally compatible with human well-being. Meta hasn't been any of those things in quite a while.
That good pay , benefit, nice work environment comes from destroying environment, communities, lying, cheating and so many other such wonderful things.
People do like to remain oblivious to all. Some go even further to blame company for their immoral activities but remain firmly in place as income from those activities is just too good to leave.
I also hear from people I know at Meta that there is a very strong push to use AI to speed up developer work. One person I know complains that their velocity is slowed down because they have to fix some of the slop that gets checked in as code review is too lax about AI generated code.
My guess is that if the planned layoffs remove these "underperforming" devs that are actually fixing AI introduced bugs at the detriment of their own velocity, that will hopefully lead to a correction that AI isn't actually dramatically increasing efficiency, but rather that it trades efficiency amongst individuals with likely a slight positive trend in efficiency overall.
Interestingly, since I'm also from an academic background, it seems professors have leaned in heavily on AI and are essentially using their PhD students as filters for AI ideas (which have a MUCH lower signal to noise in that domain).
Interesting times (speaking as an NLP researcher).
Serious question - I know this will come off as inflammatory but I am genuinely curious. Do you ever talk to coworkers about the addictive, polarizing nature of Meta recommendation feed algorithms? There is pretty solid research around teen health (specially girls) around how many problems it causes.
Is the pay just so good you turn a blind eye? Honestly, I can understand that if I am being honest. But I don't see as many people being clear about this. I assume people are delusional on their impact for the dollar signs are so big they will look away from the hurt they help cause.
Not OP and never worked at Meta, but according to Sarah Wynn Williams’ Careless People, the incentive is not so much the pay, it is the options. If you get in and leave before x number of years or get fired (not 100% sure how it works) you will lose the golden ”never having to work again” -ticket. Apparently it keeps people pretty meek and helps silence the jiminy Cricket in the backgrpund.
Not really how it works anymore. Everyone just gets 4 year RSU grants with an even vesting schedule and no lockout period, and it has been that way for a long time now. I've never really heard of anyone at Meta getting options (maybe possible for execs?).
That said, with enough stock growth, the stacking RSU grants can still enter into "never having to work again" territory depending on your role/level and how many grants you've been able to stack.
Frequently! It used to be tolerated (even encouraged) internally, and many people are pushing hard against such things all the time. These days it's a good way to get targeted for layoffs though, so I'm assuming our days are numbered.
There are a lot of folks who also really do not care and are just here for the money though. The large majority, if I were to guess.
It's like this (or was before I left) in Capital One. So I think it's a universal big corporation type of thing. And beyond that its probably a bigger part of the trend of break down in dignity and morals.
Why does anyone want to work for companies run by such awful people in the first place? I saw me CEO make up a whole new persona to suck up the new nazi administration I would be gone the next day.
Is Zuck just too...neurodivergent or lacking in social awareness or low EQ or whatever the case may be to understand morale? Or just so cut-throat/trusting that people who don't currently work there want the META paycheck badly enough that even if morale is horrible they can just backfill departures?
I have a low but not infrequent amount of direct exposure to him and honestly I think it's ~30% he is extremely ruthlessly competitive at any cost, and ~70% every semi-reasonable idea he has gets immediately twisted into cargo-culting, empire-building nonsense by the VP layer.
I wouldn't blame company culture on neurodivergents. It's explained by a stereotypical ruthless flavor of business, which reinforced itself with the culture they hired and nurtured.
The company has been known as kinda sketchy almost continuously since it was founded, yet people went there because it paid the most money.
If leadership is now thinking that an executive "ideas person", plus a small execution team fortified with AI, can bang out a product more quickly than the massive army of corporate workers they've been feeding at top of the market rates, and at the same quality level as the previous inefficient bureaucracy managed... isn't that plausibly correct?
Now, the company just needs to be the best-paying job available to enough of those workers. And the company believes this is getting easier for the company, due to the state of the job market. The workers who remain will remain motivated by money.
And the company may think they're not losing anything of value, since they knew that their culture was already sick.
Example: They think they weren't getting creative, aligned, diligent brilliance, amidst all the backstabbing and politics they'd created, and so mechanically executing on an executive ideas person's vision yields the same product result, faster.
From the outside, I think this shouldn't be a surprise, nor blamed on possible neurodivergence of individuals.
(Of course this isn't my own philosophy about morale and effective product teams, and I wouldn't want to work at a company like that. But you can see some company cultures from thousands of miles away.)
I think that Zuckerberg is driven by numbers/analytics and the competition.
He was lucky enough to be made a king in this world before he was fully adult, he is likely unaware of many of the realities we take for granted, and why would he care? Money is good.
Same for most executives and upper management being unable to relate because companies stopped promoting within and no longer reward loyalty and seniority. They see you as something that could be dismissed instead of someone that might run or heavily influence the company one day.
They bought out Instagram because it was shaping out to be a huge competitor, so I think that business would have grown to be a multibillion dollar one regardless.
It was definitely very smart to buy them out when they did.
It's really hard to tell if an idea is bad without trying it out first. Zuck's runway was unusually long. And who knows? Maybe he should have stuck with it a while longer. We cannot say for certain that it would always have failed.
> Maybe he should have stuck with it a while longer. We cannot say for certain that it would always have failed.
Well, their execution was also very expensive and yet garbage, which is crazy with how many insanely talented people they had to work on it at one point or the other. It seems pretty clear cut as executive failure.
Zuck probably has ADHD (or something like that). If you have experienced it or know people that do then you know that you tend to have tons of random ideas that seem good in the moment but a few days later you realize weren’t that great.
Now imagine every time one of these ideas happen a 2000+ person org immediately starts pivoting to work on it as its top priority.
I personally believe that he is just piece of shit. Unhinged, greedy, selfish one. Some people are made this way, some people evolve into that state. I don't really think it's some sort of diagnosis.
It is a schoolyard bully mindset in adult language. Someone acts differently than your idealized version of yourself in the same situation -> insinuate that they are not just different, but they are so abnormal as to constitute a medical condition.
We need to stop suggesting that someone who is "neurodivergent" is more likely to be a sociopathic asshole. The two are not related at all.
Back in the day you could mention in passing "oh that guy is on a spectrum", but it was always because they were awkward and quiet, not anti-social.
Zuck has spent his life from birth in a walled garden. He cannot relate to normal human emotions. In a way, that's not his fault, but we showered people like him with praise for being "geniuses" and "visionaries", which did not help matters.
I'm "neurodivergent" but when it comes to empathy/sympathy, I tend toward the over-sensitive side rather than oblivious (as does my son, who is diagnosed with ASD Type 1).
I don't take any issue with that being used in this context, though. I mean, I wouldn't really in any context as long as the person writing it isn't intending malice -- they're just words, people can misuse/abuse them -- but specifically this context. "Neurodivergent" covers a lot of ground, but in reference to Mr. Zuckerberg, nearly all of us[0] pictured one of two things: Data (Star Trek) or Data with Borg accessories attached. Which you chose largely depended on your opinion of him, but both had an android character who has no ability to feel emotions or understand the emotions that others feel.
... and since good communication largely rests on people's understanding of your message, I think OP's word choice was largely sound. :)
[0] As in those of you who, like me, have never been in the same city at the same time as the guy so we know "him" based on what we read about him.
Someone who is neurodivergent (which is itself an umbrella term) may very well struggle to accurately detect the level of morale amongst their coworkers (or signs of low morale), or may have a more difficult time fostering the level of closeness to their coworkers to build the trust with those people that they'd be vulnerable and share their feelings of low morale.
That all may be true, but we have other data points. There are multiple stories of Zuckerberg being warned about the dangers of "X" and "Y". "This is going to harm children", for example. He repeatedly overrides those concerns and gives the go-ahead. This is not some poor soul who has trouble connecting with people, this is a sociopath.
The word is, Zuck is going through his midlife crisis (42 yo) and wants a tougher, more driven, and more masculine environment. Zuck has been pro-Trump for a while, and palling around with MMA guys. He's also open to importing 996 culture because of his appreciation of China, which stems from his Chinese wife.
You literally work for a guy who, talking about the user data he dubiously acquired, that said "they trust me, dumb fucks".
It's hard to feel sorry for workers who chose that road, the writing was on the wall.
And to be very well paid to create the biggest spying tech on the planet, making doomscroll addictive, ads that serve scams, AI slop everywhere, and being accused of having participated in election manipulation.
At some point, I call it poetic justice, and I wish there were more of that.
Yeah, I'm inclined to think people can grow. There's a reason juveniles convicted of crimes, even serious crimes, should be given a second chance and are given a second chance in most civilized places.
College is where things start to firm up for most people, though. I don't think I've ever known anyone who was a terrible person in college who turned out good.
Believe it or not, I agree. I don't sleep particularly great, but I went in clear eyed that in the worst case I'd be helping a company that should not own "the next platform" attempt to do exactly that.
But in the best case, I'd be working in a low ROI area -- actively draining money from the parts of the company that are most malicious -- primarily ensuring that assembly lines and skills at Goertek stay hot to carry the XR devices I'm passionate about through a nadir in the broader industry's investment. A mercenary agreement for the company and myself to both advance our goals.
I was just reading the old speech by John Barlow, in another post[0]. Sort of dovetails with this.
I spent the majority of my career at a camera manufacturer.
I probably made half of what I could have made, anywhere else, and there were lots of issues, caused by bureaucratic overhead, heavy-handed QA, and cultural misunderstandings.
But not once, during almost 27 years, did I wonder "Are we the baddies?"[1].
My first job was at a defense contractor, where we manufactured surveillance gear, and sold it to militaries and spy agencies around the world. One of the reasons that I left that job, was because we definitely were the baddies.
I decided very early in my career that I would never work for a place that sells ads. Don't think I could sleep at night if I worked at a place like Meta or Google.
How different is it really though, if you work for a company that buys the ads?
I've thought about this because it's true for most every place I worked, we just funnel money into Google & Meta's coffers and play the SEO and social hacks game just like everyone else.
I think it's pretty different. As much as you might not want to and put effort into avoiding it, sometimes you must make a deal with the devil to live your life or operate your business, simply because the world is what it is. But working for the devil is a choice.
I understand what you're saying, but no, I don't agree. These companies have positioned themselves so that it is often unavoidable to do business with them.
If you have a visual arts business you are more-or-less required to have an Instagram account, and maybe even advertise on it. It's where your customers and business partners are and if you want to participate in that space, you're handicapping yourself so severely by not being there that you're probably putting your business's existence at risk. It's a similar story for online businesses with Google ads and SEO, and so on. There's shades of grey in how much one decides to do business with these companies, sure, but it's pretty much unavoidable, because of how these companies worked to create & maintain their monopolies.
That's not similar to choosing to work at those companies. There are zillions of jobs out there aside from working at one of the six most evil companies in the country. No one is choosing Google or Meta as their only option. Anyone working at Meta or Google is doing so by choice.
It's interesting you call these sites and advertising opportunities absolutely necessary for things like visual arts businesses and yet don't think they are doing any good in the world. If the ad spots and targeting didn't exist then niche internet-ads-dependent businesses also would not.
Advertising is necessary for many businesses. The way Meta & Google sell ads and show them to users by algorithmically monetizing human attention is incredibly harmful to society & humanity. Meta & Google have been so successful at their business and at manipulating governments to avoid regulations and anti-trust enforcement that they have effectively put all other methods of advertising out of business. So, the only way for businesses to advertise now is to participate in the incredibly harmful world of online advertising as run by Meta & Google.
Peace of mind largely depends on peace of wallet for a lot of people. Imagine a life without a care for accommodation or travel. Suddenly you can go wherever you want whenever you want and work on whatever you want without a care.
This is all an interesting read from where I sit -- I worked for a global multi-national telecom that spun off from the 1996 deregulated local carrier, was bought up by a dot-com bust company, promptly went bankrupt and was sold off various times.
So ... I understand bad morale and 10% layoffs. We went from 25,000 employees (1998-1999) at peek to under 3,000 (2004ish?). I did 17 years of (at least) 10% cuts company-wide, often larger in IT, every 6-12 months.
They're going to have a problem hiring, that's certain. They seem very unconcerned with that both with the drumbeat of layoffs and the forced spyware nonsense.
I remember when things were at the worst at my company, HR did a company-wide "engagement" survey. Being in IT at the time, we worked closely with them to ensure as close to complete participation as possible. The theory behind it was that each employee (anonymous) would receive a ranking, bubbled up to segments within the company (less anonymous) and specific managers.
The reason for the rush to get this out was fraud fears. I guess that number goes low enough to represent something near "an employee who feels morally obligated to destroy the organization", but the number of employees who fit in the range of "so disengaged from the company that they are probably engaging in fraud/theft" in the trial phase was an order of magnitude higher than the team had estimated.
When things get that bad, it's tough to recover. In certain locations we had an impossible time hiring most positions -- we had a toxic reputation in a high-tech location with a lot of job openings; we were often the last choice of the worst candidates no matter what the position was.
I have a genuine question for Meta engineers: what were you hoping to gain by working at this company? What motivated you, and what were your aspirations?
I really care about VR and had the opportunity to work at Reality Labs. They paid to relocate my family to the Bay Area, where I was able to get better medical care for an autoimmune disease. I interviewed at other companies too but it was late 2022 and hiring freezes eliminated my other opportunities.
So my motivations were:
- Working on something I care about
- Getting to the Bay Area and eventually being able to move to a better/more moral company
My aspirations:
- Leave Meta ASAP for somewhere less icky
I truly, honestly believed I wouldn’t survive at the company for very long, and would be laid off. Surprisingly I got great performance reviews year after year. The stock went up substantially and it got really difficult to quit. I then had a kid, struggled to adapt to the new demands, and had no extra bandwidth to interview anywhere else. Golden handcuffs, but not in the way I expected.
My moral justification for this continues to be that Meta is such a bloated, slow, and political company that there’s almost no chance that my work has any meaningful effect whatsoever on the company’s overall success or survival.
I also donate 5-6 figures to meaningful charities, particularly the Afghanistan refugee relocation efforts. Ideally our government would just fund those efforts directly but it’s nice to be able to control a very small part of the distribution of wealth
I am interviewing at other companies now, like basically all of my coworkers
Thanks for the honest assessment. I'm certain it took guts to open up about this, especially to the hostile crowd on HN. This comment is a good counter to the no-nuance "Everyone who works at Company X are terrible people!" narratives. Also, it brings up a point that often gets overlooked: These companies are absolutely enormous, and there are very likely small pockets within each of them with people who are at least trying to do good and stay out of the evil lanes. Not everyone working in BigTech is actively churning through Torment Nexus JIRA tickets, and at the very least, if you're working at one of these places, finding a team that is not actively harming the world is a good compromise.
I used to work at a company that had a client that was... let's call them morally dubious, because if I start typing out what I really think of them, there'll just be a paragraph of profanity that dang will probably remove.
Anyway, since we billed hourly, I ended up keeping track of all of the money I made while working on that client's work, and donated all of it to St. Jude's hospital.
But I still feel really fucking gross about it, and I don't think that will ever go away.
Rather than donating 5-6 figures, what about saving enough cash to live on? Roughly speaking you can "make" ~$200k/year on $5M in T-bills. You could live comfortably in the US or Europe, or basically like a king anywhere else in the world. You could work on the software you want, even pro-bono, and walk away any time. I believe this is called "F U money".
My initial offer was $400k total comp (E5), so I didn’t really consider FIRE as an option in the near term considering my spouse is a full-time parent and this area is HCOL.
I’m nowhere close to $5m, and I’m hoping to leave Meta in the next few months. But I’d love to be able to “retire” and work exclusively for companies that match my morals.
I figured the amount I’m donating doesn’t make a huge difference to my FIRE date
That 200k is a reasonable amount to start withdrawing from a 5M portfolio (exactly the 4% rule from the Trinity study [1]), but you’ll want to adjust it for inflation every year. My favorite tool for planning these strategies is TPAW Planner [2], which visualizes the distribution of withdrawals under various market outcomes. It’ll also suggest a portfolio of stocks and bonds that’ll be safer than just T-bills, which have a high risk of not beating inflation.
If everyone who works at META is a bit like this, then it will be an overflow of good when y'all find your new place. Thank you for doing your part. Gratefulness
If you ever actually see the work or something charities on the ground and the people they help you might change your mind very quickly. They certainly do more good than another million in some index fund.
People who work at Meta, the ones I met in London, didn’t seem too far removed from people working in the financial industry.
They didn’t seem to look much further than their desk and their bank accounts for what was meaningful to them. That’s ok, I’m sure we need people like that, but a lot of them were just doing the “career” thing and don’t really mind about what happens to the system they’re contributing to after they’ve done their part. They do the necessary work to keep the system in motion, without caring too deeply about what happens next. They worry about their locus of understanding and control and don’t mind much what happens after. That was my impression.
I've known many people that worked at FB/Meta, though most of them served between 2010-2020. The scale they deal with does lead to some very interesting tech challenges that can be very satisfying. Most of them eventually moved on, and my impression is that the culture really has changed post-covid.
I visited a former colleague at the Palo Alto campus in ~2014. What they were working on looked intriguing (I signed an NDA to visit and don't remember the terms, so I won't say what), but it did feel cultish at the time.
Is that because if all people in the software industry cared about the subject and technology more than the money, we would be overworked for low wages? Eg. in the video games industry?
On the flip side, is it good that people are willing to ignore the negative societal consequences of their job?
(I'm not trying to make a point, but rather asking questions since I want to know how people see this.)
I think if something happens in the universe, It probably has its function, otherwise it wouldn't exist.
If there was no reason for it to exist, it wouldn't. I'm not saying it's good or bad, it's a question of accepting the construct of existence as what is not what I hope it could be under different circumstances.
There's probably an evolutionary reason why we need people who don't get paralyzed by second and third order effects.
It's the material reality of what people live through. When one is entirely alienated from the product of their own labour, what do they care for the mission and culture of a company who will fire me at an irrational whim? Better to have a vibrant life outside of work to keep oneself sane.
Well, especially if the mission of the company who will fire them at a whim is driving "engagement" at any cost in order to sell ads, or (as in the case of the company I work for since the company I originally applied at was bought out), sell sports data to betting companies, who can blame them?
But I have enough money now and no amount of more money (that Meta could reasonably offer for my role) would make it worth staying. This place sucks now.
Are you brave, or ready to resign by posting publicly that your current employer sucks?
Either way, it’s wild watching several people in this thread literally not care if they get fired. I guess the article really is accurate.
Maybe I’m miscalibrated, but “I work at X. This place sucks” has never been a safe thing to say openly, so it’s interesting seeing it from multiple people here.
Plus there’s the usual angle of people not wanting to hire someone that’s willing to publicly trash their current employer. Will you be as vocal next job?
Don’t get me wrong, I respect that you’re outspoken. It’s just very twilight zone, so I’m trying to figure out the implications.
BTW, I appreciate people's candor, and don't want to spoil it, but I feel obligated to point out, to people criticizing big-tech employers, that HN pseudonymous/anonymous identities aren't very secure...
You might have a good amount of faith in dang (as do I), to not, say, let the investment firm sell HN account identity info to data brokers.
And HN is almost unique among popular sites, in not running any apparent third-party trackers at all.
But HN occasionally turns on Google reCaptcha, which I suspect could unmask most pseudonymous/anonymous identities here. Especially since it wasn't expected.
Unmasked, along with their entire past and future comment history, of which Google and other tech companies might have firehose feeds.
(I've emailed hn@ my concerns about people not expecting big-tech trackers on HN, but I suspect that HN is occasionally in a difficult position, due to attacks.)
I mean, from the post it sounds like they already have a bank account large enough to say what they want without any repercussions having any side effects, such as unemployment.
Also, not all future employers are totally worried about that, especially when those that were doing the speaking have a very wanted set of skills. Quite often the future employer is like "Oh yea, everyone knows Meta/FB is balls, glad you pointed it out", especially in the case they are much smaller than the mega company.
> Plus there’s the usual angle of people not wanting to hire someone that’s willing to publicly trash their current employer. Will you be as vocal next job?
Someone at Meta saying it sucks publicly and that they no longer want to be there would be a positive hiring signal for many people.
Good point, that makes sense. It happens to be a special case, so they’re saying it here. But in general very few will probably be saying “this place sucks” about their employer.
Good (or at least smart) employers pay quite a lot of money on quarterly anonymised surveys precisely to hear what their employees truly think about the company. I think some shareholders care about those numbers as well enough to want to see them. Of course there is a difference between saying what is obvious to anyone interested anyway (like above) and crying publicly over some petty grievance.
Besides, if the company only seeks spineless lackeys would you want to work there anyway?
I don't understand the mindset of being surprised that people are honest about their own opinions about their work. I don't have any uniquely bad concerns about my employer so I don't think I've ever written anything like the GP, but I have spoken honestly about my past experiences. If we can't be honest about how we think and feel about something we spend the majority of our time and energy doing, aren't we just being oppressed?
I work in integrity (keeping bad stuff off the platform). My job is to reduce the harm Meta causes. So I'm at peace with myself. I don't think I could work in any other area of Meta though.
Cool. Maybe you can tell me why when I reported a private message that was like "Looking for a super easy part-time job? Earn $100-$10000 per day working from anywhere! [...]" as spam, I got a response that the message didn't go against community standards and no action was being taken.
When I worked there pre covid it was just a really fun environment. Lots of smart people, a lot of autonomy to choose what you work on, good quality dev environment and tooling, a culture of collaboration and problem solving (“nothing is someone else’s problem” actually was a real thing). And the pay was top of market.
Now I guess all that is gone though so you are only left with the $?
The usual bet is that you double your salary by tolerating a toxic work environment for a few years.
If you are not in the Bay Area, the absolute numbers might seem unbelievable but here you go - I have seen mid-senior engineers (4-5 years exp) get Meta offers with 700k yearly TC.
No one is getting $700k tc for senior eng outside of speciality AI roles. That’s beyond even staff level.
You can stay at the company and get stock appreciation up to that but you’re not getting a new hire offer at $700k below staff level. (Even for staff, it’s high)
If you look at HN salary threads and self-reported salary websites, then everyone in tech makes $700K, drives a Maserati and owns a vacation home in Tahoe.
I saw a comment by an anonymous Meta engineer who said that it's difficult to leave when you see $2m worth of unvested stock sitting in your account. How many years would you be miserable for $2m? Many people can be easily seduced by that amount of money
I guess it depends - if the miserable conditions and work I was doing only affected me, maybe a couple of years. The problem here is that Meta is a company that actively does harm to the world. They've contributed to genocide in Myanmar, harmed children, and overall have been a net negative on society. So my answer to your question, if we're strictly talking about Meta, is none. I would never work for a company like Meta because I value other humans more than money.
Money is a proxy for other things. In the places where meta has offices, the cost of living (housing, childcare, healthcare, etc etc) is so high that working for a company that pays like Meta can be the only way many can afford it all.
It's hard to expect people to sacrifice a comfortable non-extravagant lifestyle for principles.
Are there some purely money-centric lambo loving single sociopaths at companies like Meta? Sure.
However,there are probably many more employees who are not thrilled about the company's business model but dependent on the pay, while living in a system concentrates wealth and access to both capital and doesn't guarantee or make affordable the aforementioned basics of modern life.
Hopefully many of them wake up to the folly the system that makes u like Meta (or Apple, Google, etc) effectively gatekeepers of a good standard of living, but until then it's hard to question their motivation for working at these companies "for the money".
Money?? Isn't that why we put up with any of this shit? The stress in this industry is intense, espically in big tech companies, and the only reason it's worth it is the extremely high salaries and stock vests.... I've been at Amazon for 4 years and if I didn't get paid like I do now there's no way I would stay.
Right now, layoffs are cool. It boosts earnings. And the current sentiment is that new ideas and projects are risky unless they involve shoving the square-shaped-AI into the circle-shaped-hole.
The thing that bothers me the most is that the people making these decisions are "winning" regardless of the outcomes. I can't remember a time where the industry was so overtly like this (i.e., the outcomes don't really matter). Perhaps the dotcom-era but I wasn't working in tech yet.
Tech company leadership gleefully replacing engineers with AI is going to be an incredibly short-lived era. I'll admit I was a little shocked at just how susceptible software engineering was to the brute force of LLMs, but man, wait until they find out just how easy it is for an LLM to do their jobs.
This isn't stopping until it gets all the way up to the asset holders.
They are not replacing anybody with AI. Meta has been a bloated hell hole for a very long time now (maybe 10+ years). Nothing, literally nothing beyond Ads and AdTech makes a dent in their earnings. The complaints here - it's not only the "recently toxic environment"; I remember a conversation I had with a Meta SWE in 2019; he said "If I stop doing anything right now, my manager would not realize for at least 6 months - the stuff I am working on is that unimportant". It's not hard to see how people will get disillusioned so quickly when the job itself is this meaningless.
This is large ymmv. Most people would get fired for not shipping stuff regularly. Just because some engineers at a big company are able to skirt by without shipping doesn’t mean that’s the norm.
The company has tens of thousands of people. There will be some variation but a lot of orgs are quite ruthless with their metrics.
Agreed - also things have changed a lot since 2019. Having said that, even people who ship and are rewarded for it do work on stuff that has very little impact on the bottom line. Except ads.
A big part of successful LLM-driven dev is caring about the quality of the output, and it's so easy to ship slop and not care in a low-morale environment.
I think execs are vastly underestimating the damage an apathetic engineering org armed with AI can do to their platform. The short-termism can (and I think will) come back around when they foster an angry culture with a huge token budget.
It reminds me of Woodstock '99, when in order to keep an angry, hungry and drunk crowd under control, the organizers planned a candlelight vigil for Columbine and gave the crowd real candles. That went over about as well as one might guess.
This Hacker News thread isn't useful at all. It's the same people that comment on every thread stating their opinions overconfidently. It's the same perpetually negative Wired article. These things would be the same no matter what is really going on, and so I can't use it to learn anything.
- harvested user data which helped a company manipulate a US election and the Brexit outcome?
- played a role in spreading hate speech, which was used to support a genocide in Myanmar?
- harmed the mental health of a generation of young people.
Just highlighting some data points. I'm really not suggesting you stand up for yourself and do something that might harm your employer that is now harming you.
Myanmar to me is damning because a) if you read Sarah Wynn's book things were reported to the company and nothing was done about it b) possibly the algorithm, you're not getting a chronological list of posts; FB favors "engagement". Though I don't know how this works in other languages
but c) because they forced this on themselves. Free Basics is Zuck's idea to own everything. They expand into markets without, I guess, checks and balances. Remember this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10791198
People downvote you because they are gullible, naive, peace-loving hippies or wait I mean they hate the hippies, but also still hate any semblance of eye-for-an-eye or retribution or revenge. It's better that you bend over, take it, and then just complain passively aggressively on social media about being powerless.
Dont propose anything that the powerful do. Because you are supposed to be a subservient slave knowing your place.
Who knows. Probably when they are pushed some more. Most populations you'll find will tolerate more abuse than you think; isn't it easy to measure the abuse factor of a peoples' by just measuring and varying the things like food, cost of living, basic comforts and then striving to meet just above the minimum threshold?
And, finally, when you as a leader cannot meet those needs any longer, you push for war as the chimpanzee alphas do and prolong your position of power even longer.
edit: to answer your question, I think when they are less sick, have more perceived power and agency. The Americans of today are more sick, more self-perceived as disempowered, and in general a naive and gullible, cowardice people.
You have much less control over what the government does than choosing your job. I have rejected job offers from both facebook and google. If FAANGS want you, you have the choice of employers. And you chose.
Imagine the cognitive dissonance at play there, doing some DS work, realizing your product actively makes people depressed...all while driving back to your 5M+ home in a Tesla listening to podcasts about sunning your ballsack
Meta's sustained low morale leading to the departure of top talent and a subsequent decline of Whatsapp and Instagram will be a genuine gift to the world by Meta after decades of global damage. Looking forward to a world without them
How will the people here who continuously rationalize AI rationalize this? A substantial number of the cheerleaders are financially invested in AI of course, but there are useful idiots, too.
You are destroying a profession that was fun and profitable. Don't come with your Luddite and "a subset of us did it to others as well" talking points.
Adding numbers wasn't fun, spreadsheets by hand weren't fun. But you are actively destroying fun thinking, perhaps because you have never worked on anything substantial yourselves and want to drag others down.
Stop enrolling in CS, let us see how that works out for FAANG in 5 years. There is no incentive any longer.
How will the people who continuously rationalize cars justify that they are destroying a profession - horse carriage driver - that was fun and profitable ?
How will the people who continuously rationalize the Internet justify that they are destroying a profession - travel agents - that was fun and profitable?
If we blocked every possible innovation because it lowered the fun of something existing we'd never have progressed past the Stone Age.
cars are not exactly a success story. Both of your examples (cars and internet) are things that had some great applications but also have been mis-used or over-used.
cars: people now live completely car-dependent lives and drive way too much. our infrastructure cannot handle people driving so much and it's extremely expensive and bad for our health and terrible for the environment
internet: well... obviously... social media and all the harms that come with that.
Professionally driving a horse carriage wasn't fun. Noise, boredom, unloading things manually if it was a carriage for goods. It was probably a moderately horrible job.
Travel agents used to give better recommendations and even cheaper flights. There is little innovation in the ad laden travel sites that give bad deals. Case in point: Often if you call a hotel directly you get a better price than on the sites and they don't give you the room next to the elevator that appears to be reserved for people who order via the sites.
Real anti-stone-age innovation has mostly been in the physical world to free up time for thinking. That is what the rich people who cannot think for themselves now want to take away.
There are a lot of valid reasons to hate AI, but I don't think "morale of Meta engineers" is a very good one. What were they building? Maybe it was fun--some fun tech seems to have come out of Meta--but what was its social impact? On teenage mental health? On politics and the electorate in the US? On the Rohingya? And they meanwhile they were compensated very well for years.
I don't know that this has a ton to do with AI. Meta has had "fuck around" money for a very long time, the kind of money that let Zuckerberg hire a ton of people to make the Metaverse. And it let a lot of engineers work on things they were passionate about but that don't directly drive profits.
As Meta's stock price falls that fuck around money falls away and people's jobs are suddenly a lot more focused on making the company cash. Of course that's going to make people miserable.
It's a story, but I don't really agree with this explanation. Fucking around burning money on VR didn't help morale in the other 90% of the company. And in general employees (all with RSUs) were happy about the stock price appreciation that came from a renewed fiscal discipline post 2022 or so.
They'll use the same tired and morally bankrupt excuse as everyone else that builds horrible things: "If we don't do it, someone else will. (Also we'll make so much money doing it!)"
This is why companies don't announce layoffs before they know who will be impacted, as frustrating as it can be. My morale would be in the gutter too if I had to spend a month wondering whether I'm the unlucky 1 in 10.
I don't think that matters at Meta. They purposefully create this "survival of the fittest" environment, making sure they squeeze every ounce of work (and soul) from you.
I survived two rounds of layoffs at a company. Each time there was a message from the CEO, and a drawn out process of learning who had kept their job and who hadn't. It was supposed to be more humane but it ended up making things much worse.
When I was finally laid off, there was no notice at all. Ripping off the band-aid was better (though it still sucked).
That doesn't really work if you have as many frequent layoffs as Meta has had as everyone will be thinking about it constantly, along with the collapse of one of its major endeavors (Metaverse) and people realizing that the cash bonfire could have been in their pockets instead.
This has been building with every layoff, reorg, roadmap thrash, policy rug pull, etc since roughly 2022.
It ratchets up both after the silent layoffs, and before the announced ones; after the silent refresher reductions, and the announced MCI-like initiatives.
It's nice to think morale is only bottoming out for a month, but in actuality it is spiraling catastrophically.
Things have changed and I think most employees in SV/big tech have not yet come to the realization that the executives really, genuinely, honestly, actively despise their employees and gleefully want to see them suffer. It doesn't matter if it's bad for the company's long-term health, or bad for customers, or or bad for finances or PR or anything else, it is now pathological/idealogical now.
They do have a small circle of trusted people who they like (like the 1%, lol), but if you're not in, you're just trash that they haven't gotten around to cleaning out yet.
Record low morale for working for one of the worst companies in existence? How can one be smart enough to work for Meta, but not see this coming? I wish I had some sympathy for Meta employees, but I truly do not. You reap what you sow.
Currently at Meta. This place has always been a bit ruthless in the 8+ years I've been around to observe. But the article is accurate.
Never seen people this universally fed up. I thought tech was too cushy for it to happen, but there's serious collective action posting out in the open all over the place.
It's also never been more cutthroat, backstabby, scope-grabby, political, and uncertain. There seems to be a flywheel in effect where top talent exits and those who will drown each other to stay afloat are all that remain. It's somehow leapfrogging Oracle's culture even.
I also work at Meta. The chaos and instability is awful. But I think they could fire pretty much everyone and the ads business would still continue to grow at nearly the same rate.
I think it will take a very long time for leadership to feel the effects of what they've done.
> I also work at Meta. The chaos and instability is awful. But I think they could fire pretty much everyone and the ads business would still continue to grow at nearly the same rate.
I spent 5 years at Facebook (2013-18), and I can guarantee you that if you fired the sales teams, revenue would take a pretty large hit.
More generally my friend who was there till last year (at a pretty senior manager level) said that once the AAP thing happened with Apple, it got really really nasty.
Like, every company tends towards the median of it's geographies over time but Facebook was a pretty special place to work at back in the day, and it looks like a lot of that has been lost now.
The median of its employees’ geographies is China. That’s how it got worse than your average maturing Bay Area company
Interesting. Could you elaborate on any specifics for this claim?
996 culture, and Zuck has a particular fondness for China, Chinese people due to his wife.
ok so no evidence, just racist innuendo
Some Facebook ad forums have gone from frustration to extreme hyperbole (e.g. death penalty for Meta execs). The "you're doing it wrong" replies have also shifted to more of "having the same problem". We would like to advertise again on Meta, but it looks quite scary to start again. We've even received two bills from Meta, though we have not advertised since 2020. Contested one and got a discount, the other was smaller and I didn't contest. Trying to disconnect everything currently.
I'm guessing you have 0 insight into the work that the ads, ranking, apps, and sales teams do to keep the gravy train flowing and even expanding 30% every year. If Meta fired even just half the ranking workers, the recommendation models (both ads and feeds) would very quickly become stale and start shedding many Fortune 500 companies worth of revenue.
I'm guessing you have 0 insight into how monopolies work.
When I read parent say "pretty much everyone", I assume the hypothetically not-cut people are still a thousands large skeleton crew keeping the cash cow fed and happy. What did you think they meant? 3 execs and an janitor?
I'm sure whatever your role at facebook is, it is very important. There are people who recognize how valuable your contributions were/are/will be. You probably won't find that validation on HN.
> There seems to be a flywheel in effect where top talent exits and those who will drown each other to stay afloat are all that remain.
This is the death spiral of a company. Things start to get bad, the best people with the most external options leave, which makes things worse... the people left behind are either those with no other options, or people who strive in the backstabbing environment of a company in decline.
It's easy to keep employees happy with good pay and benefits and a nice work environment, as long as the work is reasonably ethical and life-affirming and generally compatible with human well-being. Meta hasn't been any of those things in quite a while.
That good pay , benefit, nice work environment comes from destroying environment, communities, lying, cheating and so many other such wonderful things.
People do like to remain oblivious to all. Some go even further to blame company for their immoral activities but remain firmly in place as income from those activities is just too good to leave.
I also hear from people I know at Meta that there is a very strong push to use AI to speed up developer work. One person I know complains that their velocity is slowed down because they have to fix some of the slop that gets checked in as code review is too lax about AI generated code.
My guess is that if the planned layoffs remove these "underperforming" devs that are actually fixing AI introduced bugs at the detriment of their own velocity, that will hopefully lead to a correction that AI isn't actually dramatically increasing efficiency, but rather that it trades efficiency amongst individuals with likely a slight positive trend in efficiency overall.
Interestingly, since I'm also from an academic background, it seems professors have leaned in heavily on AI and are essentially using their PhD students as filters for AI ideas (which have a MUCH lower signal to noise in that domain).
Interesting times (speaking as an NLP researcher).
Definitely happens. Many meetings about what to do with the avalanche of vibe diffs from PMs that take organic SWE eyeball time to review hah
Serious question - I know this will come off as inflammatory but I am genuinely curious. Do you ever talk to coworkers about the addictive, polarizing nature of Meta recommendation feed algorithms? There is pretty solid research around teen health (specially girls) around how many problems it causes.
Is the pay just so good you turn a blind eye? Honestly, I can understand that if I am being honest. But I don't see as many people being clear about this. I assume people are delusional on their impact for the dollar signs are so big they will look away from the hurt they help cause.
Not OP and never worked at Meta, but according to Sarah Wynn Williams’ Careless People, the incentive is not so much the pay, it is the options. If you get in and leave before x number of years or get fired (not 100% sure how it works) you will lose the golden ”never having to work again” -ticket. Apparently it keeps people pretty meek and helps silence the jiminy Cricket in the backgrpund.
Not really how it works anymore. Everyone just gets 4 year RSU grants with an even vesting schedule and no lockout period, and it has been that way for a long time now. I've never really heard of anyone at Meta getting options (maybe possible for execs?).
That said, with enough stock growth, the stacking RSU grants can still enter into "never having to work again" territory depending on your role/level and how many grants you've been able to stack.
Frequently! It used to be tolerated (even encouraged) internally, and many people are pushing hard against such things all the time. These days it's a good way to get targeted for layoffs though, so I'm assuming our days are numbered.
There are a lot of folks who also really do not care and are just here for the money though. The large majority, if I were to guess.
Are they going to unionise?
It's like this (or was before I left) in Capital One. So I think it's a universal big corporation type of thing. And beyond that its probably a bigger part of the trend of break down in dignity and morals.
Why does anyone want to work for companies run by such awful people in the first place? I saw me CEO make up a whole new persona to suck up the new nazi administration I would be gone the next day.
Have you heard of money?
I have a friend at Meta. He said he hates every moment of working there but when the sweet RSUs drop every month it makes it all worth it.
Yuck…
At least you know how much he is willing to sell his happiness for?
I'm certain they'll be saddened to learn someone on HN disapproves of their >95th percentile remuneration.
Is Zuck just too...neurodivergent or lacking in social awareness or low EQ or whatever the case may be to understand morale? Or just so cut-throat/trusting that people who don't currently work there want the META paycheck badly enough that even if morale is horrible they can just backfill departures?
I have a low but not infrequent amount of direct exposure to him and honestly I think it's ~30% he is extremely ruthlessly competitive at any cost, and ~70% every semi-reasonable idea he has gets immediately twisted into cargo-culting, empire-building nonsense by the VP layer.
> he is extremely ruthlessly competitive at any cost
I mean, they had Carthago Delenda Est posters for a long time, so the competitiveness has been there for an extremely long time.
I wouldn't blame company culture on neurodivergents. It's explained by a stereotypical ruthless flavor of business, which reinforced itself with the culture they hired and nurtured.
The company has been known as kinda sketchy almost continuously since it was founded, yet people went there because it paid the most money.
If leadership is now thinking that an executive "ideas person", plus a small execution team fortified with AI, can bang out a product more quickly than the massive army of corporate workers they've been feeding at top of the market rates, and at the same quality level as the previous inefficient bureaucracy managed... isn't that plausibly correct?
Now, the company just needs to be the best-paying job available to enough of those workers. And the company believes this is getting easier for the company, due to the state of the job market. The workers who remain will remain motivated by money.
And the company may think they're not losing anything of value, since they knew that their culture was already sick.
Example: They think they weren't getting creative, aligned, diligent brilliance, amidst all the backstabbing and politics they'd created, and so mechanically executing on an executive ideas person's vision yields the same product result, faster.
From the outside, I think this shouldn't be a surprise, nor blamed on possible neurodivergence of individuals.
(Of course this isn't my own philosophy about morale and effective product teams, and I wouldn't want to work at a company like that. But you can see some company cultures from thousands of miles away.)
I think that Zuckerberg is driven by numbers/analytics and the competition. He was lucky enough to be made a king in this world before he was fully adult, he is likely unaware of many of the realities we take for granted, and why would he care? Money is good.
Same for most executives and upper management being unable to relate because companies stopped promoting within and no longer reward loyalty and seniority. They see you as something that could be dismissed instead of someone that might run or heavily influence the company one day.
This is the guy who tried to make the metaverse a thing. He has been out of touch for decades now.
He's also the guy who bought Instagram for $1bn and turned into a $70bn behemoth. If that's out of touch then I don't know what the opposite would be.
They bought out Instagram because it was shaping out to be a huge competitor, so I think that business would have grown to be a multibillion dollar one regardless.
It was definitely very smart to buy them out when they did.
I just think you're focusing on the wrong part.
He did that because it was a solid data driven decision.
Not sure he's shown ability to do anything beyond making solid decisions on which competitors to acquire.
Wasn’t this like 14 years ago? So not sure it really contradicts the comment you reply to.
It's entirely possible that he's changed and his pulse of the market has changed in the 10+ years since that decision.
Exactly. The yes man culture must be pretty hard near him.
It's really hard to tell if an idea is bad without trying it out first. Zuck's runway was unusually long. And who knows? Maybe he should have stuck with it a while longer. We cannot say for certain that it would always have failed.
> Maybe he should have stuck with it a while longer. We cannot say for certain that it would always have failed.
Well, their execution was also very expensive and yet garbage, which is crazy with how many insanely talented people they had to work on it at one point or the other. It seems pretty clear cut as executive failure.
Zuck probably has ADHD (or something like that). If you have experienced it or know people that do then you know that you tend to have tons of random ideas that seem good in the moment but a few days later you realize weren’t that great.
Now imagine every time one of these ideas happen a 2000+ person org immediately starts pivoting to work on it as its top priority.
I personally believe that he is just piece of shit. Unhinged, greedy, selfish one. Some people are made this way, some people evolve into that state. I don't really think it's some sort of diagnosis.
It is a schoolyard bully mindset in adult language. Someone acts differently than your idealized version of yourself in the same situation -> insinuate that they are not just different, but they are so abnormal as to constitute a medical condition.
We need to stop suggesting that someone who is "neurodivergent" is more likely to be a sociopathic asshole. The two are not related at all.
Back in the day you could mention in passing "oh that guy is on a spectrum", but it was always because they were awkward and quiet, not anti-social.
Zuck has spent his life from birth in a walled garden. He cannot relate to normal human emotions. In a way, that's not his fault, but we showered people like him with praise for being "geniuses" and "visionaries", which did not help matters.
You make a good point.
I'm "neurodivergent" but when it comes to empathy/sympathy, I tend toward the over-sensitive side rather than oblivious (as does my son, who is diagnosed with ASD Type 1).
I don't take any issue with that being used in this context, though. I mean, I wouldn't really in any context as long as the person writing it isn't intending malice -- they're just words, people can misuse/abuse them -- but specifically this context. "Neurodivergent" covers a lot of ground, but in reference to Mr. Zuckerberg, nearly all of us[0] pictured one of two things: Data (Star Trek) or Data with Borg accessories attached. Which you chose largely depended on your opinion of him, but both had an android character who has no ability to feel emotions or understand the emotions that others feel.
... and since good communication largely rests on people's understanding of your message, I think OP's word choice was largely sound. :)
[0] As in those of you who, like me, have never been in the same city at the same time as the guy so we know "him" based on what we read about him.
Someone who is neurodivergent (which is itself an umbrella term) may very well struggle to accurately detect the level of morale amongst their coworkers (or signs of low morale), or may have a more difficult time fostering the level of closeness to their coworkers to build the trust with those people that they'd be vulnerable and share their feelings of low morale.
That all may be true, but we have other data points. There are multiple stories of Zuckerberg being warned about the dangers of "X" and "Y". "This is going to harm children", for example. He repeatedly overrides those concerns and gives the go-ahead. This is not some poor soul who has trouble connecting with people, this is a sociopath.
"Dumb fucks"
Arguably hacking Crimson reporters when they tried investigating him for activities at Harvard
Buying Whatsapp so he can have a monopoly
Copying Snapchat multiple times
I mean, I can go on
The word is, Zuck is going through his midlife crisis (42 yo) and wants a tougher, more driven, and more masculine environment. Zuck has been pro-Trump for a while, and palling around with MMA guys. He's also open to importing 996 culture because of his appreciation of China, which stems from his Chinese wife.
I think he is playing the political game and will be pro who ever is in office to protect his baby
Meta is a scourge of a company.
You literally work for a guy who, talking about the user data he dubiously acquired, that said "they trust me, dumb fucks".
It's hard to feel sorry for workers who chose that road, the writing was on the wall.
And to be very well paid to create the biggest spying tech on the planet, making doomscroll addictive, ads that serve scams, AI slop everywhere, and being accused of having participated in election manipulation.
At some point, I call it poetic justice, and I wish there were more of that.
A dumb thing Zuck said when he was in college pales in comparison to the horrible stuff he's enabled as a fully formed adult who should know better.
Yes.
But there are things you say as a young person that are revealing of core personality traits.
Most people would just not say that.
Yeah, I'm inclined to think people can grow. There's a reason juveniles convicted of crimes, even serious crimes, should be given a second chance and are given a second chance in most civilized places.
College is where things start to firm up for most people, though. I don't think I've ever known anyone who was a terrible person in college who turned out good.
The child is the father of the man, as Wordsworth said.
Ok
"A" dumb thing
Ignore dumb fucks
What about "if you need info on people at Harvard just ask"
Or "I'm going to fuck them in the ear" (Winklevosses)
Everything he's done since is far worse.
Believe it or not, I agree. I don't sleep particularly great, but I went in clear eyed that in the worst case I'd be helping a company that should not own "the next platform" attempt to do exactly that.
But in the best case, I'd be working in a low ROI area -- actively draining money from the parts of the company that are most malicious -- primarily ensuring that assembly lines and skills at Goertek stay hot to carry the XR devices I'm passionate about through a nadir in the broader industry's investment. A mercenary agreement for the company and myself to both advance our goals.
describes every single company in usa right now
Okay. Dumping my $META stock
I guess it's a sign of the times.
I was just reading the old speech by John Barlow, in another post[0]. Sort of dovetails with this.
I spent the majority of my career at a camera manufacturer.
I probably made half of what I could have made, anywhere else, and there were lots of issues, caused by bureaucratic overhead, heavy-handed QA, and cultural misunderstandings.
But not once, during almost 27 years, did I wonder "Are we the baddies?"[1].
My first job was at a defense contractor, where we manufactured surveillance gear, and sold it to militaries and spy agencies around the world. One of the reasons that I left that job, was because we definitely were the baddies.
[0] https://www.eff.org/pages/leaving-physical-world
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
I decided very early in my career that I would never work for a place that sells ads. Don't think I could sleep at night if I worked at a place like Meta or Google.
How different is it really though, if you work for a company that buys the ads?
I've thought about this because it's true for most every place I worked, we just funnel money into Google & Meta's coffers and play the SEO and social hacks game just like everyone else.
I think it's pretty different. As much as you might not want to and put effort into avoiding it, sometimes you must make a deal with the devil to live your life or operate your business, simply because the world is what it is. But working for the devil is a choice.
in both cases you're making a deal to enrich "the devil" to enrich yourself
could your business simply make less money? could you find other ways to achieve your business goals? could you put in more work for lesser results?
these are the same choices you're asking others to make about their employment
I understand what you're saying, but no, I don't agree. These companies have positioned themselves so that it is often unavoidable to do business with them.
If you have a visual arts business you are more-or-less required to have an Instagram account, and maybe even advertise on it. It's where your customers and business partners are and if you want to participate in that space, you're handicapping yourself so severely by not being there that you're probably putting your business's existence at risk. It's a similar story for online businesses with Google ads and SEO, and so on. There's shades of grey in how much one decides to do business with these companies, sure, but it's pretty much unavoidable, because of how these companies worked to create & maintain their monopolies.
That's not similar to choosing to work at those companies. There are zillions of jobs out there aside from working at one of the six most evil companies in the country. No one is choosing Google or Meta as their only option. Anyone working at Meta or Google is doing so by choice.
It's interesting you call these sites and advertising opportunities absolutely necessary for things like visual arts businesses and yet don't think they are doing any good in the world. If the ad spots and targeting didn't exist then niche internet-ads-dependent businesses also would not.
Advertising is necessary for many businesses. The way Meta & Google sell ads and show them to users by algorithmically monetizing human attention is incredibly harmful to society & humanity. Meta & Google have been so successful at their business and at manipulating governments to avoid regulations and anti-trust enforcement that they have effectively put all other methods of advertising out of business. So, the only way for businesses to advertise now is to participate in the incredibly harmful world of online advertising as run by Meta & Google.
>I probably made half of what I could have made, anywhere else...
Peace of mind over peace of wallet for me, every time.
Peace of mind largely depends on peace of wallet for a lot of people. Imagine a life without a care for accommodation or travel. Suddenly you can go wherever you want whenever you want and work on whatever you want without a care.
Hear hear. I feel lucky to have a stable job in education even if I make less than my big tech colleagues.
This is all an interesting read from where I sit -- I worked for a global multi-national telecom that spun off from the 1996 deregulated local carrier, was bought up by a dot-com bust company, promptly went bankrupt and was sold off various times.
So ... I understand bad morale and 10% layoffs. We went from 25,000 employees (1998-1999) at peek to under 3,000 (2004ish?). I did 17 years of (at least) 10% cuts company-wide, often larger in IT, every 6-12 months.
They're going to have a problem hiring, that's certain. They seem very unconcerned with that both with the drumbeat of layoffs and the forced spyware nonsense.
I remember when things were at the worst at my company, HR did a company-wide "engagement" survey. Being in IT at the time, we worked closely with them to ensure as close to complete participation as possible. The theory behind it was that each employee (anonymous) would receive a ranking, bubbled up to segments within the company (less anonymous) and specific managers.
The reason for the rush to get this out was fraud fears. I guess that number goes low enough to represent something near "an employee who feels morally obligated to destroy the organization", but the number of employees who fit in the range of "so disengaged from the company that they are probably engaging in fraud/theft" in the trial phase was an order of magnitude higher than the team had estimated.
When things get that bad, it's tough to recover. In certain locations we had an impossible time hiring most positions -- we had a toxic reputation in a high-tech location with a lot of job openings; we were often the last choice of the worst candidates no matter what the position was.
I don’t like meta , but they have and endless supply of people who would sell their mother to work there. I’m sure about that.
I’ve turned down lots of interviews there because I find working there to be morally bankrupt.
I have a genuine question for Meta engineers: what were you hoping to gain by working at this company? What motivated you, and what were your aspirations?
I work at Meta (for now…)
I really care about VR and had the opportunity to work at Reality Labs. They paid to relocate my family to the Bay Area, where I was able to get better medical care for an autoimmune disease. I interviewed at other companies too but it was late 2022 and hiring freezes eliminated my other opportunities.
So my motivations were: - Working on something I care about - Getting to the Bay Area and eventually being able to move to a better/more moral company
My aspirations: - Leave Meta ASAP for somewhere less icky
I truly, honestly believed I wouldn’t survive at the company for very long, and would be laid off. Surprisingly I got great performance reviews year after year. The stock went up substantially and it got really difficult to quit. I then had a kid, struggled to adapt to the new demands, and had no extra bandwidth to interview anywhere else. Golden handcuffs, but not in the way I expected.
My moral justification for this continues to be that Meta is such a bloated, slow, and political company that there’s almost no chance that my work has any meaningful effect whatsoever on the company’s overall success or survival.
I also donate 5-6 figures to meaningful charities, particularly the Afghanistan refugee relocation efforts. Ideally our government would just fund those efforts directly but it’s nice to be able to control a very small part of the distribution of wealth
I am interviewing at other companies now, like basically all of my coworkers
Thanks for the honest assessment. I'm certain it took guts to open up about this, especially to the hostile crowd on HN. This comment is a good counter to the no-nuance "Everyone who works at Company X are terrible people!" narratives. Also, it brings up a point that often gets overlooked: These companies are absolutely enormous, and there are very likely small pockets within each of them with people who are at least trying to do good and stay out of the evil lanes. Not everyone working in BigTech is actively churning through Torment Nexus JIRA tickets, and at the very least, if you're working at one of these places, finding a team that is not actively harming the world is a good compromise.
I used to work at a company that had a client that was... let's call them morally dubious, because if I start typing out what I really think of them, there'll just be a paragraph of profanity that dang will probably remove.
Anyway, since we billed hourly, I ended up keeping track of all of the money I made while working on that client's work, and donated all of it to St. Jude's hospital.
But I still feel really fucking gross about it, and I don't think that will ever go away.
Rather than donating 5-6 figures, what about saving enough cash to live on? Roughly speaking you can "make" ~$200k/year on $5M in T-bills. You could live comfortably in the US or Europe, or basically like a king anywhere else in the world. You could work on the software you want, even pro-bono, and walk away any time. I believe this is called "F U money".
My initial offer was $400k total comp (E5), so I didn’t really consider FIRE as an option in the near term considering my spouse is a full-time parent and this area is HCOL.
I’m nowhere close to $5m, and I’m hoping to leave Meta in the next few months. But I’d love to be able to “retire” and work exclusively for companies that match my morals.
I figured the amount I’m donating doesn’t make a huge difference to my FIRE date
That 200k is a reasonable amount to start withdrawing from a 5M portfolio (exactly the 4% rule from the Trinity study [1]), but you’ll want to adjust it for inflation every year. My favorite tool for planning these strategies is TPAW Planner [2], which visualizes the distribution of withdrawals under various market outcomes. It’ll also suggest a portfolio of stocks and bonds that’ll be safer than just T-bills, which have a high risk of not beating inflation.
1: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Safe_withdrawal_rates
2: https://tpawplanner.com/
If everyone who works at META is a bit like this, then it will be an overflow of good when y'all find your new place. Thank you for doing your part. Gratefulness
Donating to charities or NGOs might be more harmful than anything you've ever done.
Fly-by snark is an interesting choice.
What were you hoping to achieve with this comment other than making a person who is being vulnerable to anonymous internet denizens feel worse?
If you ever actually see the work or something charities on the ground and the people they help you might change your mind very quickly. They certainly do more good than another million in some index fund.
I guess you were among the ones applauding when Elon put USAID "into the woodchipper"?
People who work at Meta, the ones I met in London, didn’t seem too far removed from people working in the financial industry.
They didn’t seem to look much further than their desk and their bank accounts for what was meaningful to them. That’s ok, I’m sure we need people like that, but a lot of them were just doing the “career” thing and don’t really mind about what happens to the system they’re contributing to after they’ve done their part. They do the necessary work to keep the system in motion, without caring too deeply about what happens next. They worry about their locus of understanding and control and don’t mind much what happens after. That was my impression.
I've known many people that worked at FB/Meta, though most of them served between 2010-2020. The scale they deal with does lead to some very interesting tech challenges that can be very satisfying. Most of them eventually moved on, and my impression is that the culture really has changed post-covid.
I visited a former colleague at the Palo Alto campus in ~2014. What they were working on looked intriguing (I signed an NDA to visit and don't remember the terms, so I won't say what), but it did feel cultish at the time.
> I’m sure we need people like that
Is that because if all people in the software industry cared about the subject and technology more than the money, we would be overworked for low wages? Eg. in the video games industry?
On the flip side, is it good that people are willing to ignore the negative societal consequences of their job?
(I'm not trying to make a point, but rather asking questions since I want to know how people see this.)
I think if something happens in the universe, It probably has its function, otherwise it wouldn't exist.
If there was no reason for it to exist, it wouldn't. I'm not saying it's good or bad, it's a question of accepting the construct of existence as what is not what I hope it could be under different circumstances.
There's probably an evolutionary reason why we need people who don't get paralyzed by second and third order effects.
"Desk and bank account" makes for a very small world. Have we shrunk? Are we dwarfs now?
It's the material reality of what people live through. When one is entirely alienated from the product of their own labour, what do they care for the mission and culture of a company who will fire me at an irrational whim? Better to have a vibrant life outside of work to keep oneself sane.
Well, especially if the mission of the company who will fire them at a whim is driving "engagement" at any cost in order to sell ads, or (as in the case of the company I work for since the company I originally applied at was bought out), sell sports data to betting companies, who can blame them?
I work at Meta.
1) Work with top minds in ML 2) Money
But I have enough money now and no amount of more money (that Meta could reasonably offer for my role) would make it worth staying. This place sucks now.
Are you brave, or ready to resign by posting publicly that your current employer sucks?
Either way, it’s wild watching several people in this thread literally not care if they get fired. I guess the article really is accurate.
Maybe I’m miscalibrated, but “I work at X. This place sucks” has never been a safe thing to say openly, so it’s interesting seeing it from multiple people here.
Plus there’s the usual angle of people not wanting to hire someone that’s willing to publicly trash their current employer. Will you be as vocal next job?
Don’t get me wrong, I respect that you’re outspoken. It’s just very twilight zone, so I’m trying to figure out the implications.
BTW, I appreciate people's candor, and don't want to spoil it, but I feel obligated to point out, to people criticizing big-tech employers, that HN pseudonymous/anonymous identities aren't very secure...
You might have a good amount of faith in dang (as do I), to not, say, let the investment firm sell HN account identity info to data brokers.
And HN is almost unique among popular sites, in not running any apparent third-party trackers at all.
But HN occasionally turns on Google reCaptcha, which I suspect could unmask most pseudonymous/anonymous identities here. Especially since it wasn't expected.
Unmasked, along with their entire past and future comment history, of which Google and other tech companies might have firehose feeds.
(I've emailed hn@ my concerns about people not expecting big-tech trackers on HN, but I suspect that HN is occasionally in a difficult position, due to attacks.)
Saying "fuck you" after having fuck you money is just fun. I don't see any bravery to it.
I mean, from the post it sounds like they already have a bank account large enough to say what they want without any repercussions having any side effects, such as unemployment.
Also, not all future employers are totally worried about that, especially when those that were doing the speaking have a very wanted set of skills. Quite often the future employer is like "Oh yea, everyone knows Meta/FB is balls, glad you pointed it out", especially in the case they are much smaller than the mega company.
> Plus there’s the usual angle of people not wanting to hire someone that’s willing to publicly trash their current employer. Will you be as vocal next job?
Someone at Meta saying it sucks publicly and that they no longer want to be there would be a positive hiring signal for many people.
Good point, that makes sense. It happens to be a special case, so they’re saying it here. But in general very few will probably be saying “this place sucks” about their employer.
Good (or at least smart) employers pay quite a lot of money on quarterly anonymised surveys precisely to hear what their employees truly think about the company. I think some shareholders care about those numbers as well enough to want to see them. Of course there is a difference between saying what is obvious to anyone interested anyway (like above) and crying publicly over some petty grievance.
Besides, if the company only seeks spineless lackeys would you want to work there anyway?
I don't understand the mindset of being surprised that people are honest about their own opinions about their work. I don't have any uniquely bad concerns about my employer so I don't think I've ever written anything like the GP, but I have spoken honestly about my past experiences. If we can't be honest about how we think and feel about something we spend the majority of our time and energy doing, aren't we just being oppressed?
If you are working with top minds in ML then you must be a top mind yourself that can get equal or more money at any of the ai labs.
So i doubt you are really "working with" top minds at ml meta.
Why do you stay?
Do you think both are worth the harms your company is causing to the rest of the world?
I work in integrity (keeping bad stuff off the platform). My job is to reduce the harm Meta causes. So I'm at peace with myself. I don't think I could work in any other area of Meta though.
Cool. Maybe you can tell me why when I reported a private message that was like "Looking for a super easy part-time job? Earn $100-$10000 per day working from anywhere! [...]" as spam, I got a response that the message didn't go against community standards and no action was being taken.
Actions speak. Of course they do.
When I worked there pre covid it was just a really fun environment. Lots of smart people, a lot of autonomy to choose what you work on, good quality dev environment and tooling, a culture of collaboration and problem solving (“nothing is someone else’s problem” actually was a real thing). And the pay was top of market.
Now I guess all that is gone though so you are only left with the $?
The usual bet is that you double your salary by tolerating a toxic work environment for a few years.
If you are not in the Bay Area, the absolute numbers might seem unbelievable but here you go - I have seen mid-senior engineers (4-5 years exp) get Meta offers with 700k yearly TC.
No one is getting $700k tc for senior eng outside of speciality AI roles. That’s beyond even staff level.
You can stay at the company and get stock appreciation up to that but you’re not getting a new hire offer at $700k below staff level. (Even for staff, it’s high)
If you look at HN salary threads and self-reported salary websites, then everyone in tech makes $700K, drives a Maserati and owns a vacation home in Tahoe.
700k a year and not finding anything else to buy than a maserati is the saddest thing ever
Not a Meta engineer, but I've known a couple. It's money.
The same for any FAANG, money.
I'm not a Meta engineer, but if I had to offer a guess, the answer would be money.
I saw a comment by an anonymous Meta engineer who said that it's difficult to leave when you see $2m worth of unvested stock sitting in your account. How many years would you be miserable for $2m? Many people can be easily seduced by that amount of money
Given it's like 30 years of my salary I'd probably be willing to be miserable for a number of years.
Totally understandable, and probably another reason why morale is so low, as employees watch the stock price and their personal fortunes fall.
I guess it depends - if the miserable conditions and work I was doing only affected me, maybe a couple of years. The problem here is that Meta is a company that actively does harm to the world. They've contributed to genocide in Myanmar, harmed children, and overall have been a net negative on society. So my answer to your question, if we're strictly talking about Meta, is none. I would never work for a company like Meta because I value other humans more than money.
Having a passion for personal financial solvency is a major motivation for a surprising number of people.
Money is a proxy for other things. In the places where meta has offices, the cost of living (housing, childcare, healthcare, etc etc) is so high that working for a company that pays like Meta can be the only way many can afford it all.
It's hard to expect people to sacrifice a comfortable non-extravagant lifestyle for principles.
Are there some purely money-centric lambo loving single sociopaths at companies like Meta? Sure.
However,there are probably many more employees who are not thrilled about the company's business model but dependent on the pay, while living in a system concentrates wealth and access to both capital and doesn't guarantee or make affordable the aforementioned basics of modern life.
Hopefully many of them wake up to the folly the system that makes u like Meta (or Apple, Google, etc) effectively gatekeepers of a good standard of living, but until then it's hard to question their motivation for working at these companies "for the money".
Money?? Isn't that why we put up with any of this shit? The stress in this industry is intense, espically in big tech companies, and the only reason it's worth it is the extremely high salaries and stock vests.... I've been at Amazon for 4 years and if I didn't get paid like I do now there's no way I would stay.
alot of them make 1M+
The pendulum swings.
Right now, layoffs are cool. It boosts earnings. And the current sentiment is that new ideas and projects are risky unless they involve shoving the square-shaped-AI into the circle-shaped-hole.
The thing that bothers me the most is that the people making these decisions are "winning" regardless of the outcomes. I can't remember a time where the industry was so overtly like this (i.e., the outcomes don't really matter). Perhaps the dotcom-era but I wasn't working in tech yet.
Tech company leadership gleefully replacing engineers with AI is going to be an incredibly short-lived era. I'll admit I was a little shocked at just how susceptible software engineering was to the brute force of LLMs, but man, wait until they find out just how easy it is for an LLM to do their jobs.
This isn't stopping until it gets all the way up to the asset holders.
They are not replacing anybody with AI. Meta has been a bloated hell hole for a very long time now (maybe 10+ years). Nothing, literally nothing beyond Ads and AdTech makes a dent in their earnings. The complaints here - it's not only the "recently toxic environment"; I remember a conversation I had with a Meta SWE in 2019; he said "If I stop doing anything right now, my manager would not realize for at least 6 months - the stuff I am working on is that unimportant". It's not hard to see how people will get disillusioned so quickly when the job itself is this meaningless.
This is large ymmv. Most people would get fired for not shipping stuff regularly. Just because some engineers at a big company are able to skirt by without shipping doesn’t mean that’s the norm.
The company has tens of thousands of people. There will be some variation but a lot of orgs are quite ruthless with their metrics.
Agreed - also things have changed a lot since 2019. Having said that, even people who ship and are rewarded for it do work on stuff that has very little impact on the bottom line. Except ads.
A big part of successful LLM-driven dev is caring about the quality of the output, and it's so easy to ship slop and not care in a low-morale environment.
I think execs are vastly underestimating the damage an apathetic engineering org armed with AI can do to their platform. The short-termism can (and I think will) come back around when they foster an angry culture with a huge token budget.
It reminds me of Woodstock '99, when in order to keep an angry, hungry and drunk crowd under control, the organizers planned a candlelight vigil for Columbine and gave the crowd real candles. That went over about as well as one might guess.
https://archive.ph/BfugB
This Hacker News thread isn't useful at all. It's the same people that comment on every thread stating their opinions overconfidently. It's the same perpetually negative Wired article. These things would be the same no matter what is really going on, and so I can't use it to learn anything.
Could be said of almost every HN thread to be fair
I am wondering if Zuckerberg somehow stumbled upon the old Decimation thing on Wikipedia one late evening and decided it was a good idea to try.
I don't really understand the rationale otherwise, hiring is hard, and they are not forced to reduce cost now.
This seems like a colossal mistake. Not the first of course.
> stumbled upon the old Decimation thing on Wikipedia
He took Latin at his first high school and at Exeter when he went there for 11th and 12th grades, so he almost certainly knew it without Wikipedia.
But yeah, whenever I've survived a layoff it feels a bit like surviving a decimation or some other collective punishment.
The industry standardized on this as "Stack ranking" like two decades ago.
what is the Decimation thing?
Roman legions would execute every 10th man as collective punishment. Kept the survivors in line. No idea if it ever actually happened.
It is something that occured a few times in Roman history.
A collective punishment, 10% of the soldiers killed by their peers, randomly choosen.
Hey Meta folks, remember that time when Facebook:
- harvested user data which helped a company manipulate a US election and the Brexit outcome?
- played a role in spreading hate speech, which was used to support a genocide in Myanmar?
- harmed the mental health of a generation of young people.
Just highlighting some data points. I'm really not suggesting you stand up for yourself and do something that might harm your employer that is now harming you.
Myanmar to me is damning because a) if you read Sarah Wynn's book things were reported to the company and nothing was done about it b) possibly the algorithm, you're not getting a chronological list of posts; FB favors "engagement". Though I don't know how this works in other languages
but c) because they forced this on themselves. Free Basics is Zuck's idea to own everything. They expand into markets without, I guess, checks and balances. Remember this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10791198
People downvote you because they are gullible, naive, peace-loving hippies or wait I mean they hate the hippies, but also still hate any semblance of eye-for-an-eye or retribution or revenge. It's better that you bend over, take it, and then just complain passively aggressively on social media about being powerless.
Dont propose anything that the powerful do. Because you are supposed to be a subservient slave knowing your place.
Wonder when Americans will apply this to themselves with their own government which does far worse things everyday instead of posting these comments.
Who knows. Probably when they are pushed some more. Most populations you'll find will tolerate more abuse than you think; isn't it easy to measure the abuse factor of a peoples' by just measuring and varying the things like food, cost of living, basic comforts and then striving to meet just above the minimum threshold?
And, finally, when you as a leader cannot meet those needs any longer, you push for war as the chimpanzee alphas do and prolong your position of power even longer.
edit: to answer your question, I think when they are less sick, have more perceived power and agency. The Americans of today are more sick, more self-perceived as disempowered, and in general a naive and gullible, cowardice people.
You have much less control over what the government does than choosing your job. I have rejected job offers from both facebook and google. If FAANGS want you, you have the choice of employers. And you chose.
Related:
Meta's embrace of AI is making its employees miserable
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48077126
Imagine the cognitive dissonance at play there, doing some DS work, realizing your product actively makes people depressed...all while driving back to your 5M+ home in a Tesla listening to podcasts about sunning your ballsack
Yup. "Bring the world closer together".
Meta's sustained low morale leading to the departure of top talent and a subsequent decline of Whatsapp and Instagram will be a genuine gift to the world by Meta after decades of global damage. Looking forward to a world without them
> Median total compensation at Meta fell to $388,200 last year from $417,400 in 2024
My heart bleeds.
How will the people here who continuously rationalize AI rationalize this? A substantial number of the cheerleaders are financially invested in AI of course, but there are useful idiots, too.
You are destroying a profession that was fun and profitable. Don't come with your Luddite and "a subset of us did it to others as well" talking points.
Adding numbers wasn't fun, spreadsheets by hand weren't fun. But you are actively destroying fun thinking, perhaps because you have never worked on anything substantial yourselves and want to drag others down.
Stop enrolling in CS, let us see how that works out for FAANG in 5 years. There is no incentive any longer.
How will the people who continuously rationalize cars justify that they are destroying a profession - horse carriage driver - that was fun and profitable ?
How will the people who continuously rationalize the Internet justify that they are destroying a profession - travel agents - that was fun and profitable?
If we blocked every possible innovation because it lowered the fun of something existing we'd never have progressed past the Stone Age.
cars are not exactly a success story. Both of your examples (cars and internet) are things that had some great applications but also have been mis-used or over-used.
cars: people now live completely car-dependent lives and drive way too much. our infrastructure cannot handle people driving so much and it's extremely expensive and bad for our health and terrible for the environment
internet: well... obviously... social media and all the harms that come with that.
Help, the whigs are loose on HackerNews again! Quick, grab even a rudimentary understanding of human history. It's their one weakness.
Professionally driving a horse carriage wasn't fun. Noise, boredom, unloading things manually if it was a carriage for goods. It was probably a moderately horrible job.
Travel agents used to give better recommendations and even cheaper flights. There is little innovation in the ad laden travel sites that give bad deals. Case in point: Often if you call a hotel directly you get a better price than on the sites and they don't give you the room next to the elevator that appears to be reserved for people who order via the sites.
Real anti-stone-age innovation has mostly been in the physical world to free up time for thinking. That is what the rich people who cannot think for themselves now want to take away.
There are a lot of valid reasons to hate AI, but I don't think "morale of Meta engineers" is a very good one. What were they building? Maybe it was fun--some fun tech seems to have come out of Meta--but what was its social impact? On teenage mental health? On politics and the electorate in the US? On the Rohingya? And they meanwhile they were compensated very well for years.
I don't know that this has a ton to do with AI. Meta has had "fuck around" money for a very long time, the kind of money that let Zuckerberg hire a ton of people to make the Metaverse. And it let a lot of engineers work on things they were passionate about but that don't directly drive profits.
As Meta's stock price falls that fuck around money falls away and people's jobs are suddenly a lot more focused on making the company cash. Of course that's going to make people miserable.
It's a story, but I don't really agree with this explanation. Fucking around burning money on VR didn't help morale in the other 90% of the company. And in general employees (all with RSUs) were happy about the stock price appreciation that came from a renewed fiscal discipline post 2022 or so.
They'll use the same tired and morally bankrupt excuse as everyone else that builds horrible things: "If we don't do it, someone else will. (Also we'll make so much money doing it!)"
AI probably can be useful but not used like this
Of course Zuckerberg has no idea what he's doing
This is why companies don't announce layoffs before they know who will be impacted, as frustrating as it can be. My morale would be in the gutter too if I had to spend a month wondering whether I'm the unlucky 1 in 10.
I don't think that matters at Meta. They purposefully create this "survival of the fittest" environment, making sure they squeeze every ounce of work (and soul) from you.
I survived two rounds of layoffs at a company. Each time there was a message from the CEO, and a drawn out process of learning who had kept their job and who hadn't. It was supposed to be more humane but it ended up making things much worse.
When I was finally laid off, there was no notice at all. Ripping off the band-aid was better (though it still sucked).
That doesn't really work if you have as many frequent layoffs as Meta has had as everyone will be thinking about it constantly, along with the collapse of one of its major endeavors (Metaverse) and people realizing that the cash bonfire could have been in their pockets instead.
This has been building with every layoff, reorg, roadmap thrash, policy rug pull, etc since roughly 2022.
It ratchets up both after the silent layoffs, and before the announced ones; after the silent refresher reductions, and the announced MCI-like initiatives.
It's nice to think morale is only bottoming out for a month, but in actuality it is spiraling catastrophically.
They don't care. Only 5% of their people contribute to the bottom line. Rest are all deadweight.
Things have changed and I think most employees in SV/big tech have not yet come to the realization that the executives really, genuinely, honestly, actively despise their employees and gleefully want to see them suffer. It doesn't matter if it's bad for the company's long-term health, or bad for customers, or or bad for finances or PR or anything else, it is now pathological/idealogical now.
They do have a small circle of trusted people who they like (like the 1%, lol), but if you're not in, you're just trash that they haven't gotten around to cleaning out yet.
Yeah culture has gone too shit. Since Sheryl left
Record low morale for working for one of the worst companies in existence? How can one be smart enough to work for Meta, but not see this coming? I wish I had some sympathy for Meta employees, but I truly do not. You reap what you sow.
Meta is a normal high-comp company (for now) now. This is what it’s like to work at any mature F500 outside of privileged organizations and teams.
Extremely untrue. Meta is significantly worse than your average F500.
How so and in regard to which part of my claim?