Meta continuing to be the most shameless (and shameful to work for) company around.
I can't think of a single product of theirs that hasn't made the world a markedly worse place. Even their recent hardware foray is managing to find a way to ruin trust in everyday interactions (guys filming drunk girls with Ray Bans, surveillance, etc.).
Have several friends at the more 'thoughtful' frontier labs that bin meta applicants straight to the trash for this very reason.
I’d really like to leave, but I’m kind of stuck, and I don’t have enough to retire.
I have to work remote from a non-coast state for family care reasons, and the places I’ve interviewed at the last few months have balked at hiring a remote employee.
You can’t say “where else can I work” like you have no agency over your life. Everyone chooses every day to do what they do that day.
You don’t get to be morally absolved because you’re choosing the easy path and you’re “stuck”. I’m sure there are plenty of places that pay less that would love to have talented remote employees.
In a large portion of tech people like to pretend that they are absolved of responsibility for their societal contributions. “Get that bag” and all that. Work at Anduril as long as it makes that bread, etc.
It makes sense that someone promoting them to re-evaluate the harm they’re causing by participating would elicit negative response
If they're willing to do this to their own employees that they pay and supposedly wanted to keep around, what are they willing to do with your data? What are they willing to do with the systems they connect to your systems? "Dumb f*cks" has truly been the ethos of this company from day 1.
If you read the linked article it says the leaked data screenshot of some employees private conversation in plain text and other performance information.
It was a bold move to do full screen recording and hoping they would anonymize it.
Take into account that these are corporate computers, and the tracking is of work that the company is paying for, so the telemetry, which is highly valuable for analysis and automation, is rightfully theirs.
I also don't think that the purpose of the move was to manage workers and see if they slack off, it was to gather training data, but even if it were, I think that's normal? In any other job managers can, and are expected to, monitor employee productivity, they are paying for it, they need to ensure they are getting something worth. But again, I don't think that was the main goal here.
The computers are not intended for personal usage, if the employee wants to watch netflix, or porn, they are free to do so in their personal computers.
Imagine if this were a construction company, and there's a foreman watching the employees output, and the machine operators have their actions logged so that the machines can be automated in the future. Doesn't it sound reasonable? Is this very different at all?
So yeah, maybe a lot of people see Meta and computer tracking and immediately jump to 1984, but I kind of like nuance more than knee jerk reactions, or jumping into a narrative that we enjoy being angry about.
> I also don't think that the purpose of the move was to manage workers and see if they slack off, it was to gather training data, but even if it were, I think that's normal?
This is the cost of losing consumer trust over two decades of untrustworthy acts.
The irony of a surveillance program being undone by its own data leaking is hard to miss. But the more interesting question is what happens next — do they rebuild it with better security, or does the backlash actually change the approach?
My guess is they rebuild it. The incentive to track performance metrics at scale is too strong, especially when layoffs are partly driven by those metrics. The leak just means they'll invest more in access controls and fewer people will have visibility into the raw data.
The uncomfortable part is that most large companies already do some version of this, just less formally. Tracking commit frequency, Slack activity, meeting attendance — it's all legible to management already. Meta just put a name on it and centralized it, which made it a target.
I've never had a problem with employee tracking. For the 8 hours a day they are paying you for work, you should be working. And if you are working, you have nothing to hide.
The only people pushing back are those that sit on hackernews, reddit, etc. all day and expect to get paid for it.
Some time I spend the whole day sitting at my computer and can't think of a solution to a problem. And some time, I'm readying myself to bed and have to note down the solution that just appear in my mind. How do you even track that? I did a time with time tracking software as a freelancer and that has been the most miserable part of my working life (and I did data entry for survey).
I'm a developer and I mostly do my thinking offline. What I do on my computer is mostly translating my idea to code and consulting docs. Also testing and communication with the team. And all of this is already fairly visible without tracking.
There was a time when if your "boss" tells you to install a keylogger on your work machine, it's a black-teaming exercise. How the times have changed...
I get paid for my work, not 8 hours a day. I’m a salaried employee. I sometimes have to work more than 8 to deliver things, I sometimes work less than 8. The fact that someone needs to monitor me all day long and potentially could use the information to treat me unfairly is disgusting. I’m not the first in line to defend meta employees, but this is just unacceptable.
I actually get paid by the hour but I think exactly like you do. Often work more than what I bill for. I'm delivering so much now with swarms of agents it really doesn't even make sense to pay me by the hour. I really think my next job will be a one person company run by moi.
Given the work that Meta does and the scale that they operate at, there are absolutely real concerns about providing internal access to the activity on someone's work computer. To take an extreme example, Meta has employees who investigate reports of CSAM or other criminal activity on their platform. There have to be very strict controls over who has access to that information.
I can't think of a single product of theirs that hasn't made the world a markedly worse place. Even their recent hardware foray is managing to find a way to ruin trust in everyday interactions (guys filming drunk girls with Ray Bans, surveillance, etc.).
Have several friends at the more 'thoughtful' frontier labs that bin meta applicants straight to the trash for this very reason.
I’d really like to leave, but I’m kind of stuck, and I don’t have enough to retire.
I have to work remote from a non-coast state for family care reasons, and the places I’ve interviewed at the last few months have balked at hiring a remote employee.
1. Find another job 2. Don’t find another job
You can’t say “where else can I work” like you have no agency over your life. Everyone chooses every day to do what they do that day.
You don’t get to be morally absolved because you’re choosing the easy path and you’re “stuck”. I’m sure there are plenty of places that pay less that would love to have talented remote employees.
It makes sense that someone promoting them to re-evaluate the harm they’re causing by participating would elicit negative response
It was a bold move to do full screen recording and hoping they would anonymize it.
I think the program was legal and morally fine.
Take into account that these are corporate computers, and the tracking is of work that the company is paying for, so the telemetry, which is highly valuable for analysis and automation, is rightfully theirs.
I also don't think that the purpose of the move was to manage workers and see if they slack off, it was to gather training data, but even if it were, I think that's normal? In any other job managers can, and are expected to, monitor employee productivity, they are paying for it, they need to ensure they are getting something worth. But again, I don't think that was the main goal here.
The computers are not intended for personal usage, if the employee wants to watch netflix, or porn, they are free to do so in their personal computers.
Imagine if this were a construction company, and there's a foreman watching the employees output, and the machine operators have their actions logged so that the machines can be automated in the future. Doesn't it sound reasonable? Is this very different at all?
So yeah, maybe a lot of people see Meta and computer tracking and immediately jump to 1984, but I kind of like nuance more than knee jerk reactions, or jumping into a narrative that we enjoy being angry about.
This is the cost of losing consumer trust over two decades of untrustworthy acts.
Edit: I don’t know why I’m getting downvoted. Quite literally from the article:
> “We will only re-enable MCI when we are confident in the effectiveness of our data protection controls,” Kasriel said.
My guess is they rebuild it. The incentive to track performance metrics at scale is too strong, especially when layoffs are partly driven by those metrics. The leak just means they'll invest more in access controls and fewer people will have visibility into the raw data.
The uncomfortable part is that most large companies already do some version of this, just less formally. Tracking commit frequency, Slack activity, meeting attendance — it's all legible to management already. Meta just put a name on it and centralized it, which made it a target.
The only people pushing back are those that sit on hackernews, reddit, etc. all day and expect to get paid for it.
he uses personal cellphone to browse reddit and hacker news
be smart like the top poster
I'm a developer and I mostly do my thinking offline. What I do on my computer is mostly translating my idea to code and consulting docs. Also testing and communication with the team. And all of this is already fairly visible without tracking.
Also, this isn't about tracking social media usage, it's about collecting employee keys/actions.