Reply to post: Re: Dumb fscks?

Correction: Last month, we called Zuckerberg a moron. We apologize. In fact, he and Facebook are a fscking disgrace

martinusher Silver badge

Re: Dumb fscks?

The email exchange that was published as part of a recent Parliamentary inquiry wasn't just interesting for the actual material but also revealing of the culture within that company. The need to both monetize information and to find new sources of information to monetize means that the company sails very close to the edge of legitimacy -- it has absolutely no qualms about working in legal grey areas, it will do anything it thinks it can get away with (and has a large cash war chest to deal with situations where people do try to hold it accountable).

I have no idea whether its the exception or the rule these days. I know that a lot of the old-fashioned companies that I've worked for prided themselves on their ethical behaviour, they thought it necessary to conform to societal norms. Maybe these newer companies are just mining stored value like hedge funds except that the value they're exposing and selling is the standards of conduct in a civilized society.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019