> it's surprising that a person would share this publicly at this point in the company's history.
This is the part that tells me that maybe you are a bit out of touch with the general public.
Go to any college campus or talk to any student in a good CS program in the US. Meta is going to be on the list of some of the most sought after companies to get an internship or a fresh grad offer at. People post glowing humblebrag posts on Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/TikTok/LinkedIn/etc. when they get a job offer from Meta, for their friends and followers to see. I see it on my own feeds not that rarely, and often from people I went to college with a while ago.
I cannot really feel the same level of excitement about a job like that to share it with others in a similar way. But you finding it "surprising that a person would share [that they got a job at Meta] publicly at this point in the company's history", as if it was something they would be ashamed about and attempt hiding, is somewhat telling.
> Now if this warrants deplatforming in the eyes of a resonable person
What warrants deplatforming is your straight up admitance that you had nothing to contribute, were not acting in good faith, and were just asking a question to attack someone.
Just say it with your chest. That way people can judge for themselves what the heck it is you are doing.
I think you're the one who's attacking users here. Asking why someone would join a company is not an attack, even if I have my reservations about the company, and I had no plans to further interact with them, but probably continue to have my opinions about their choice, unless they make a compelling argument.
My question was not made in bad faith, but insinuated to be a bad faith question by a different user, though as I said, I do understand the people who directly call out Meta employees, which I did not do here.
It is you and your peer who attacked the question, brought up conspiracy theories and called for deplatforming. So if you continue perhaps I'll be the one to reach out to mods. I have every damn right to ask someone on HN why they would work for Meta, without expecting intimidation from other users.
And yes, I continue to be surprised by people who would join Meta given all the shady and illegal things they've been doing over the years. So maybe one of you could give an honest answer, one that does not involve an attack. Maybe they weren't fully aware of Meta's issues, or people there generally don't care about these problems? That is what I was trying to understand.
You know you basically already admitting to acting in bad faith right? You said this: "And why should my question be in good faith?".
This is you basically admitting that it was all in bad faith in the first place, because, it is an attempt to justify it, by effectively questioning why your question should be asked in good faith in the first place.
I think you're reading the least charitable interpretation into my comments. The question was not asked in bad faith, but genuine surprise, while I'm also bothered by people acting as if a Meta employee could not be called out. You can be offended by the matter of an allegation being framed as something bad, and also not commit the alleged act.
For example an Amazon employee could be bothered by their union related question being perceived as critique, while also seeing no issue with someone condemning Amazon for their illegal union busting, and general disregard for the safety and well being of their warehouse staff.
Ok, so you agree that you should not ask questions in bad faith, and then when you later said "And why should my question be in good faith?", well that was a dumb question.
Glad I finally got you to the point of saying that we shouldn't ask people questions in bad faith, to attack them.
Just say what mean, and don't do this roundabout way of attacking people, with a flame-bait question.
And if you already agree that we should not ask people bad faith questions, then you saying "And why should my question be in good faith?" is bad faith itself, because you already know that we shouldn't do that.
No, I don't think any method of direct or indirect questioning is bad in this context, while you have a problem with both a roundabout and a direct critique of someone's employment choice, be it Meta or Amazon. You said it yourself that I should be direct in my critique so that I hopefully get deplatformed.
Find a less harmful employer instead of projecting your insecurities into someone's question, and trying to silence critique of any kind to ease your conscience.
Cool, so as I suspected, you support engaging in bad faith, and asking bad faith questions.
Just say that from the very beginning if that is your opinion. Not sure why you would do this song and dance of denial, if this is just what you believe.
I'm not sure what you're understanding from my comments at this point, but I said it early on that I see no problem with a bad faith question when it comes to questioning a Meta enginner's employment choice. I kept repeating the same thought over an over. You can be content with something in a specific case, and at the same time not engage in it. This also doesn't mean that someone will usually support a bad faith argument, or engage in it, as you seem to want to conclude.
> I said it early on that I see no problem with a bad faith question
Awesome! Got you to admit to it them! Now don't start crying when people accuse you of supporting asking questions in bad faith.
Just say "Yep, that is a totally valid thing to accuse me of supporting. I agree that you are correct in saying that I have no problem with asking questions in bad faith!".
You could have avoided all of this, if you just said that from the beginning.
You only asked him his reason, so you could attack him for it.
Just go and say what you really meant, instead of pretending like you had anything to contribute in the first place.
That way, at least the reasonable people can see what you wrote, and hopefully get you deplatformed.