Even if he refuse to work with fb, pretty sure a lot of other people will be happy to replace.
They're the epitomy of the liberal elite, privacy is totally orthogonal as an issue.
You can say right now that "not everyone cares about privacy" and it seems reasonable, but in a decade or two it will sound like saying "not everyone cares about environmentalism" does now, it's ignorance that will slowly bear fruit.
Is privacy only the concern of social justice warriors? Have you met rural American preppers?
>Social justice warrior (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, as well as identity politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior
If you continue to use it to mean, just, "a liberal," people are going to misunderstand your point.
I think this applies to some level to entry positions. I know plenty of people coming out of school who need the money, especially considering how aggressive the economic system in the US is to young people (student debt, impossible housing, tough job market to beginners, the responsibility of saving for an uncertain future due to the lack of safety nets, etc). It is also the case there's many people who could replace you: entry-level projects will be done, regardless of wether you do them or not.
Nonetheless, there's a point at which you're set. You could take another job without worries, and in fact you're in demand. Moreover, you're effective at what you do, and have started contributing with decision-making or really bringing efficiency into projects. At this point, other people will be happy to replace sure, but they won't be the same. There's more responsibility on you.
And lastly, you reach the point at which some of these top researchers are. They're beyond fine both economically and career wise-- they don't "need this job". They're also crucial. In their projects it's either them or no one. They are very responsible for their work.
Good for them. When I see a dog turd on the sidewalk, I don't step into it because otherwise, other people might. I make sure to not step into it for purely personal reasons -- it's me and my shoes that matter, not the dog turd regardless of its ambitions, nor people who might not pay attention to where they're walking.
Inspired by your comment, I'll make my point more graphically: Nazi camps were also suitable for medical and spychological testing. Nazi and even interned doctors did all sorts of experiments on prisoners. And if they refused to do so, pretty sure other people would have been happy to replace. Not everyone shared the same concerns regarding human life.
And if they didn’t do it, someone else would have lined up to take advantage of the opportunities.
Edit: If it isn’t clear, I am being sarcastic.
Just the same way that if something wrong is done by a lot of people it doesn't make it right (smoking, drinking &c.).
Unfortunately our morals are easily swayed when the alternative choice is death.
Yes, thats probably what Nazi thought too. Above the cost of human life.