Facebook pays a lot of money so their engineers can forget about privacy as a fundamental human right and enter the life of an amoral mercenary. “I’m just trying to do the best for my family (by selling out all of yours).”
The first seems to be pretty much the definition of "amoral".
"Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something."
You’re complaining because “amoral” still sounds like a bad thing to call someone. And it is, exactly because history doesn’t tend to see that “it seemed like a grey area at the time” defense very charitably.
I thought your definition of immoral there is correct. But I thought that "gray area" means a person has morals, but the goodness of the topic is tricky to decide, while "amoral" just means the person doesn't even have a "right and wrong" scale, or doesn't care.
Sometimes the truth is inflammatory.
I think it's hard to argue at this point that Facebook is not a force for evil in the world. Engineers spending their productive years to further this evil company should feel some shame.
I don’t buy that. They either are ignorant (which is fine, until the point they become aware of it–I really doubt many people at FB are ignorant of the social issues it brings up), or they inevitably are aware and have rationalized why it is or is not an issue.
I’m not saying it is FB’s absolute responsibility. I’m saying it is the responsibility of each individual who works there. There’s a difference. Corporations are not people, the people in them are what make possible the goods or evils the corporations use to make money and thrive.
The pen is mightier than the sword. Social media is mightier than the atom bomb. People need to act accordingly. Morals are the impetus of action so I’d say they are highly relevant.
Bronn then answers "Without question? No. I'd ask how much."