Your first answer is ethically debatable in a way that entirely depends on what is perceived to be "right". I'm not sure it's as clear cut as anyone would want it to be, but your approach is consistent with a specific kind of definition from what you're saying in your third answer.
Your second answer is just a question of comfort. Similar to questions around ecology, making a choice one considers "right" might mean that you value that choice enough that the loss of benefits isn't a net loss to you. Much like with climate change, doing good things is hardly valued at all in terms of ethics in the current way tech does anything though.
And I agree with you that all companies should be scrutinized heavily, and it's possible that Facebook just has become the symbol of that behaviour in all of tech.
However (1) other people doing worse things is not really an excuse that's valid in itself ("I murdered somebody but there are serial killers out there!"), (2) facebook does a whole lot of dirty work especially in poorer countries like in Myanmar where it became ubiquitous by being pre-installed on smartphones and has become THE central information (and misinformation) hub of its own volition, and (3) you're pointing out AR and the most significant actor of that field currently is Facebook itself.
> Your first answer is ethically debatable in a way that entirely depends on what is perceived to be "right"
Indeed, I am not a moral absolutist. Its an abstract question, in which the answer tells more about the person rather than the state of morals as a whole. I must point out that I feel and know that I have compromised my morals by working at FB. That aside it is perfectly possible to work at $company and do good. There are plenty examples of resistors and rule benders that have helped people from the "inside" of terrible regimes.
I don't want to belittle Facebook's moral failings. But I am worried that shitting on facebook is being seen as fixing the problem. That was my intention, not to throw a dead cat on the table and run away.
Myanmar Is a special case. I don't think facebook actively caused the issue, but their in-attention made it worse. My (limited) understanding is that Facebook was acting like the local radio stations in the Rwanda genocide. Again, if FB had placed resources when first alerted, they might have been able to temper the spread.
India is my area of concern. The leadership there all come from the same schools, know the same people and think the same negative things about their Muslim neighbours. (this is a simplification of course) Some changes have been made, not least because of internal pressure.
on point 3, yes. AR worries me, but not because Facebook are making it.
For it to work for facebook, they have to work 10 times harder than anyone else to prove that its safe. Which I think is valid, my only wish is that same level of scepticism is applied to _all_ players. AR _needs_ to be safe, because it is so invasive. The problem comes when AR manufactures start allowing Apps. At that point all hell breaks loose.
You know what, I started by writing that I don't think Facebook has to do 10x the work but as I was going through examples of behaviour from Apple, MS, Google, and even worse (the absolute crappy companies outside of big tech like Equifax), I actually tend to agree with you.
I think ultimately all of big tech is on a downwards slope in terms of trust from society, but Facebook just got caught earlier stepping in that direction and is therefore a little bit lower already, thus your comment about making more efforts to go back up the well.
The real PR and lobby guys that all of big tech should hire are the Equifax ones, because whatever damn magic those terrible people managed to concoct has allowed them to get away with what is basically one of the worst fuck ups in history and STILL manage to make people pay for a thing that is mandatory in North America.
Your second answer is just a question of comfort. Similar to questions around ecology, making a choice one considers "right" might mean that you value that choice enough that the loss of benefits isn't a net loss to you. Much like with climate change, doing good things is hardly valued at all in terms of ethics in the current way tech does anything though.
And I agree with you that all companies should be scrutinized heavily, and it's possible that Facebook just has become the symbol of that behaviour in all of tech.
However (1) other people doing worse things is not really an excuse that's valid in itself ("I murdered somebody but there are serial killers out there!"), (2) facebook does a whole lot of dirty work especially in poorer countries like in Myanmar where it became ubiquitous by being pre-installed on smartphones and has become THE central information (and misinformation) hub of its own volition, and (3) you're pointing out AR and the most significant actor of that field currently is Facebook itself.