Being able to say: "No, I don't work here because of principles" is something really nice but not everyone can afford to do.
I'd question that. FB undoubtedly pays very well and probably better than almost all competitors, but at the same time most FB engineers could almost certainly take work somewhere else with a slightly lower (but objectively still fantastic) salary and still continue to live a very comfortable life.
I'd be interested to hear other reasons why people continue to work at FB, but "I can't afford not to" feels dubious to me.
I know I'd look slightly askance at a resume that was full of tobacco companies. Maybe we should feel the same way about surveillance-tech companies?
I think what you're saying is true for people who already work at FB, but I think you underestimate how much of a boost working at FB is for people who are deciding whether to take an offer. Having dropped out of school and only worked at unknown startups, I had previously found it very hard to even get interviews but after I worked at AWS suddenly people were interested in hiring me. I am really grateful that I had the opportunity to work there.
When I was at AWS I often asked people how they felt about working there and by far the most common response was it wasn't the greatest but it would really help their resumes. Obviously anecdotal but it leads me to think my situation was not uncommon.
They are choosing to be bad people.
Is it really better in the long run that people who disagree with privacy intrusions leave? I'd argue that it's better they stay and are part of the conversation to improve things.
If all that's left at FB are people who are solely motivated my greed, and I am sure there are certainly enough of those people to run FB, isn't this only worse for the users?