Leaked data reveals Israeli govt campaign to remove pro-Palestine posts on Meta

On 2, a few additional quotes from Wikipedia might help (they admittedly don’t directly implicate Guy Rosen, though you’d have to be extremely charitable in assuming he wasn’t party to these decisions):

“ Onavo, which allowed the company to read network traffic on a device prior to its being encrypted, thereby giving the company the ability "to measure detailed in-app activity" and to collect analytics on Snapchat app usage from devices on which Onavo was installed.[12] It did this by creating "fake digital certificates to impersonate trusted Snapchat, YouTube, and Amazon analytics servers to redirect and decrypt secure traffic from those apps for Facebook’s strategic analysis."[13] The program, which was named "Project Ghostbusters" in reference to Snapchat's ghost-shaped logo, was later expanded to include Amazon and YouTube”

“ On January 29, 2019, TechCrunch published a report detailing "Project Atlas"—an internal market research program employed by Facebook since 2016. It invited users between the ages of 13 and 35 to install the Facebook Research app—allegedly a rebranded version of Onavo Protect—on their device, to collect data on their app usage, web browsing history, web search history, location history, personal messages, photos, videos, emails, and Amazon order history. Participants received up to $20 per-month to participate in the program, which was promoted to teenagers via targeted advertising on Instagram and Snapchat. Facebook Research is administered by third-party beta testing services, including Applause and BetaBound, and requires users to install a Facebook root certificate on their phone. On iOS, this is prohibited by Apple's Enterprise Developer License Agreement, as the methods used are intended solely for use by a company's employees (for use cases such as internal software specific to their environment, and internal pre-release versions of apps)”

There are in general a lot of different companies doing things which some segment of the population considers immoral. Around HN, things having to do with privacy-violations are often frowned upon by a large percentage of the population here.

I don't always agree with these assessments, and I even less agree that this means you can point to people at various positions in these companies and call them "immoral".

Some people will consistently hold the belief that anyone working at Facebook, or Google, or whatever, are immoral. Most will inconsistently hold that belief - if they're arguing against someone, they'll use this kind of reasoning, but not in general. I'm mostly against this line of thinking in general.

Look - In some corners of HN, having worked with or served in the US military in any capacity is enough to make someone immoral. In some corners, working at a gambling company in any capacity makes you immoral. In some corners, being a doctor in any way related to performing abortions is immoral. In others, taking part in the capitalist system in any way is immoral. I doubt you or anyone agrees with all of these positions - so I think the general rule is that just being associated with something that some portion of people think is immoral is simply not enough to consider someone immoral.

(There are of course things that almost everyone considers immoral, and being associated with them could be enough, though even that barometer is sometimes wrong.)

Yeah, there’s no objective and universal barometer for what is or isn’t immoral. I’m providing evidence (as opposed to pulling things out of thin air) for why it’s reasonable for many, or even most, people in the western world to find Guy Rosen immoral. It’s okay for individuals to not find this compelling.