The quotes in that instance are--at least to me--indicating that it is NOT an exact quote, but is instead a metaphorical usage of a term.
https://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/the-emphatic-use-of-...
> Quotation marks can also highlight that a word is being used somehow peculiarly – a writer may wish to indicate irony, inaccuracy, or scepticism, for example; used this way, they’re called scare quotes.
A lot of people use them merely to offset metaphors... though this usage is often discouraged (much to my chagrin, as I do it often ;P) because your audience can usually be expected to figure it out themselves and it is almost infantilizing to offset them constantly (though, in my experience a lot of people don't know idioms or usage and so it can be helpful).
In this case, I believe the idea is that if you tell a bunch of people that public companies like Meta don't give a shit about you, and that you should never feel bad about going back on something you agreed to, it effectively "punishes" other more reasonable--maybe even privately-held--companies... but it isn't actually a punishment (of course) so you use quotation marks to add distance.
(That said, I don't personally think you should ever have to feel bad about suddenly disappearing or deciding you don't want to do the thing you thought you could do: working should be consensual, and it is almost never the case that someone is absolutely screwed if you don't take the job; and in the cases where they would be you probably know and it is almost certainly an extremely short-term problem that you can negotiate how to handle. I am just responding not to the idea but to defend the usage of quotation marks.)