Meta Pauses Employee-Tracking Program Following Internal Data Leak
wired.com
wired.com
I can't think of a single product of theirs that hasn't made the world a markedly worse place. Even their recent hardware foray is managing to find a way to ruin trust in everyday interactions (guys filming drunk girls with Ray Bans, surveillance, etc.).
Have several friends at the more 'thoughtful' frontier labs that bin meta applicants straight to the trash for this very reason.
I’d really like to leave, but I’m kind of stuck, and I don’t have enough to retire.
I have to work remote from a non-coast state for family care reasons, and the places I’ve interviewed at the last few months have balked at hiring a remote employee.
1. Find another job 2. Don’t find another job
You can’t say “where else can I work” like you have no agency over your life. Everyone chooses every day to do what they do that day.
You don’t get to be morally absolved because you’re choosing the easy path and you’re “stuck”. I’m sure there are plenty of places that pay less that would love to have talented remote employees.
It makes sense that someone promoting them to re-evaluate the harm they’re causing by participating would elicit negative response
You don’t work at Anduril to make bread, at least not as a software engineer. It’s a long hours startup with worse pay than FAANG in high CoL areas. The people that work there fundamentally believe in “improving the defense of the west”.
It is the private sector equivalent of joining the military. If you want to bag on people in the military, go ahead. But they are not in the same category as people just doing things for convenient good money.
If the motivation is 'improving the defence of the west', it's more equivalent to joining a fringe paramilitary organisation; the dogwhistle is clear.
Most people make compromises inside imperfect systems. The person casting judgment almost certainly has their own moral compromises too, except those they understand, contextualize, rationalize, and forgive themselves for.
It’s just tiresome. There may not be a ton of context, but even knowing that someone is bound to a particular place because of caregiving responsibilities should be enough to invite a little more empathy and grace, and a lot less judgment.
You don't get to hide behind "investing" just because there are some intermediaries to move money for you. You are actively gaining a profit from Meta and investing for the long term, meaning you don't even need the money for 10+ years. That's way worse than someone contributing labor to do some work in exchange for pay now. In fact you are paying their salary to do all these things you despise, and insist that they do more of it for more $ every quarter when there are any number of safe though less profitable alternatives. How does it feel?
Talk is cheap. Time to put your money where your mouth is.
Yes, it actually is, because your argument can be applied to every moral question. Why aren't you taking a short position in Meta when Meta is an evil company? Why are you drinking a coffee while a kid in Africa is starving? Why aren't you standing by the lake if a kid could be drowning?
People can't be expected to do literally every single thing that would make a positive impact. But they absolutely can be expected not to actively do evil.
> In fact you are paying their salary
I don't hold any investments in Meta, direct or indirect.
I'll make sure to shame my Illumina scientist neighbor for working on tech that deliberately targets underage children (purposely violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.). After all, he owns the world's most popular index fund, which includes Meta. He certainly should feel just as culpable as the Meta employees!
Your argument erases the employee's biggest moral choice: did the Meta employee just spawn a Meta employee? No, they chose to work there. You assign maximal agency to someone buying an index fund and minimal agency to someone who voluntarily spends 40 hours a week advancing Meta's objectives. That's backwards. (Or, more likely, a purposeful troll comment).
At the end of the day, how someone spends 40 hours a week is as much your business as how someone spends their money is my business. That you fail to see it is indicative of your own biases.
I'll repeat myself: what a mindset!
I've quit jobs over ethical boundaries. It's not an easy decision, and "integrity" doesn't quite pay rent, but helped me to sleep better at night and let me live with myself.
In any case, it's quite simple. If you work at Meta, you certainly have other options. Similar-tier companies pay just as well, and lower-tier companies will interview you readily.
We're not talking about someone scraping by here - working at Meta is a choice, and takes hard work to get into. That does not absolve you from the damage the company has done to the world. If you work there, you contribute to it (no matter how small the capacity) and you benefit from it literally through wages and share ownership. Your vested interest is in the company growing. Historically, that has meant via very dark patterns.
Have you considered that the harm of the loss of 6 figures can completely destroy local charities?
This quickly devolves into effective altruism and the problems that come with that but it’s very easy to end up in a situation where you think the net good you bring by keeping a local abused women shelter open far outweighs the negative consequences for working at Meta.
It’s actually kind of motivating. I’d interviewed at several places over the last few months and something out of my control always came up and halted the process (remote work closed down, hiring freeze, etc), so I’m definitely feeling a bit down about job prospects right now.
I needed some people to remind me “no, don’t be complacent, keep trying, there’s stuff out there and it’s worth the effort to continue looking”
The OP is a bit preachy and maybe some employees really don’t have any other options even with accepting lower salaries, but the majority should at least realise the golden handcuffs their bound by even if they choose not to act on them.
This exactly. I value working from home and not working for a company that actively makes the world hell, so I make a quarter of what some of my peers at FAANG-adjacent companies make. Which is still a lot more than I realistically need.
But I also think all of the people criticizing Meta should post where they work. I'm sure plenty of people here work for ethically dubious companies, and make the same excuses.
Glass houses and all that.
get with the times
It's always the same.
You don't need to retire early, there are companies aplenty that accept remote workers. But you won't, because you sold yourself out for money.
lol
now in arctic white!
I personally don't use it, because it _is_ loaded with engagement bait but its not all worse and is better in some ways.
“In the ordinary course of providing our service, WhatsApp does not store messages once they are delivered or transaction logs of such delivered messages. Undelivered messages are deleted from our servers after 30 days. As stated in the WhatsApp Privacy Policy, we may collect, use, preserve, and share user information if we have a good-faith belief that it is reasonably necessary to (a) keep our users safe, (b) detect, investigate, and prevent illegal activity, (c) respond to legal process, or to government requests, (d) enforce our Terms and policies. This may include information about how some users interact with others on our service. We also offer end-to-end encryption for our services, which is always activated. End-to-end encryption means that messages are encrypted to protect against WhatsApp and third parties from reading them.” (https://faq.whatsapp.com/444002211197967)
You know how I found this link? Googling WhatsApp encryption backdoor. You could have too.
No need for the attitude. Op asked you for a source, which is customary for one to back up their initial claim; an onus on you and not for someone else to validate your claims.
There is no “make things harder for the dictator” at Meta/Fb and never has been.
They have very recently shown signs of making it worse (the AI button), but overall I've been surprised how careful they've been about doing it slowly. We've probably got another 5-10 years of it being great before they turn it to shit.
And the native Windows app was a post-Facebook introduction, but it was also Facebook that canned it in favour of the current web wrapper turd.
https://whyy.org/segments/facebook-a-computing-pioneer-a-sec...
It probably will surprise no one to learn his "next big thing" is a prediction market app.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/23/technology/meta-predictio...
Hits the Meta product trifecta perfectly:
* Derivative
* Late to market
* Harmful to society
You may as well say Bezos copied the idea of Amazon from book shops.
Really, he was in exactly the right place at exactly the right time.
Everyone I know in the GPU compiler/GPGPU space seems to be either going to meta or leaving meta for NV or some AI lab. My anecdotal observations don't align with "bin meta applicants straight to the trash."
zstd
I’m torn about React and PyTorch :)
Maybe I'm exaggerating slightly, but I think we should judge frameworks compared to what other things existed at the time.
It's, by the way, another example of how the only good thing Facebook did was deny Google complete dominance.
Well, yes, but... its popularity is not completely accidental. It's good - even by today's standards, but certainly by the standards of the time.
I like that it's a framework with opinions vs React which is a "Library".
Vue is probably the only outsider of that age that stayed even somewhat relevant (really by just doing what Angular 1 did but correctly), Angular seems to have kinda survived in some niches but other than that I haven't heard of the other similarly aged frameworks in a long while.
Yes, but also “damning with faint praise” immediately comes to mind
Arguably React does have a 'disadvantage' in the sense that it doesn't do two-way data binding, and chooses to update as little of the DOM as necessary to render a change (which it's good at, and gets right), but that's sometimes more than just changing a text node or a value. I suspect that if React hadn't come along there'd be lots of homegrown frameworks doing something similar in a worse way. React is well thought-out and well designed.
Also, every reactive framework can have the same problem. It's not a React thing; it's a library-that-tracks-changes-and-updates-the-DOM thing. Used poorly you'll end up in a re-render loop.
We could just have static HTML pages and that would eliminate the whole problem, but then we'd be complaining about the electricity used on network roundtrips and people using badly coded desktop apps instead. Ultimately, libraries can be as bulletproof and fool-proof as you like, and developers will find new and novel ways to use them to build crap software. The responsibility (mostly) lies with the developers much more than the library.
But most apps don’t need a persistent counter that updates without browser refresh. Further, there were other easy solutions like http request polling, or even websockets. They weren’t solutions for Facebook because they had to support lots of devices that couldn’t handle something like websockets. But instead of the industry realizing this was a specific tool for a specific niche case we just piled on to the design pattern and built a massive lock in ecosystem that may the web worse.
Rich Harris makes the point that React isn't actually reactive: "React doesn’t have any understanding of the values running through your app. It is not Reactive."
Rich Harris - Rethinking reactivity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdNJ3fydeao
>Modern JavaScript frameworks are all about reactivity. Change your application's state, and the view updates automatically. But there's a catch — tracking state changes at runtime adds overhead that eats into your bundle size and performance budgets. In this talk, we'll discover an alternative approach: moving reactivity into the language itself. Your apps have never been smaller or faster than they're about to become.
He starts with spreadsheets as the archetypal reactive system.
Defines reactivity as values automatically updating according to dependency relationships.
Contrasts that with React's model of rerunning component functions and diffing virtual DOM trees.
Argues that React "doesn't understand the values flowing through your application" and therefore isn't reactive in the traditional sense.
Virtual DOM is pure overhead:
https://svelte.dev/blog/virtual-dom-is-pure-overhead
>But it turns out that we can achieve a similar programming model without using virtual DOM — and that's where Svelte comes in.
React tracks component renders; reactive systems track data dependencies. React doesn't react, it repeats.
I think React should have been called "Repeat", "Re-Run", "Regurgitate", or "Retch".
But I found the best development cycle as a rails/django multi page apps developer. Anytime I encountered something I needed to update without a refresh it was easy to solve with polling or eventually websockets.
There are sometimes well meaning people in corporations that do their best to at least get something out there and kudos to them, but corporations running Open Source projects should receive no goodwill for it, it's basically a scam.
Russ Nelson: "Blacks are Lazy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russ_Nelson#Blacks_are_la...
Eric S. Raymond: "The people who knew Russ as a Quaker, a pacifist and a gentleman, and no racist, but nevertheless pressured OSI to do the responsible thing and fire him in order to avoid political damage should be equally ashamed. Abetting somebody elses witch hunt is no less disgusting than starting your own. Personally, I wanted to fight this on principle. Russ resigned the presidency rather than get OSI into that fight, and the board quite properly respected his wishes in the matter. That sacrifice makes me angrier at the fools and thugs who pulled him down."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47232296
>Guido is not racist like ESR is, and it would have been a disaster to have somebody as racist and obsessed with dragging the organizations he leads into the pro-racism side of political culture war battles that have absolutely nothing to do with their mission, as ESR has a track record of trying to do: He threw down the gauntlet and attempted to drag OSI into supporting Russ Nelson after his infamous "Blacks are Lazy" blog posting that caused him to resign for the good of OSI, who ESR wanted to spend their resources and reputation fighting his culture war against (dog whistle alert:) "thugs" who don't want to follow a racist leader. That kind of blatant racism and totally non-python-related racist culture warfare bullshit political battles would have been extremely detrimental to the python community, just as his other antics and his and Russel's racist rants were detrimental to the open source community. OSI has enough problems attracting women and minorities that they don't need white male leaders telling black people they're lazy and accusing people who disagree of being "fools and thugs".
Russ pulled his own "Blacks are Lazy" post down and resigned of his own free will and was not fired, so ESR was unwittingly calling Russ a fool and thug for pulling himself down, even though he was actually attacking anti-racist people, who didn't believe blacks are lazy, and thought racist white people who publically called all blacks lazy (then patronizingly lectured them on why they are justified to be lazy) didn't deserve to lead OSI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Nelson#Personal
But his actual lifelong ideological religious cult is Libertarianism, obviously. And they epitomize what's wrong with the open source movement, ESR having based his career on tearing down and shitting all over everything RMS has done with Free Software.
ESR and Russ and their ilk just love playing a tired little game I call "Libertarian Chicken":
https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/skills/no-ai-g...
For many more examples, just look at the decades long consistent pattern of ESR's obnoxious inflamatory posts to the linux mailing lists, before he got kicked off for playing said games.
As bad as Meta products are for society, I'd say Palantir is far more shameful to work for.
At Meta, almost everyone is contributing to unethical ends.
It is in fact better to be employed arms manufacturer then be member of SS - regardless of which position they put you in. You knew this is fascist organization as you was entering it and that everything you will do is to advance those goals.
SS medic joined because he was commited nazi. You can be arms engineer without being commited nazi or commited toward genocide. With SS, nope, regardless of position they assigned you to, you have to be confident fundamentalist to join in the first place.
...Push? Did you forget about the leak and the takedown requests?
I feel I have to ask... how do you feel Messenger made the world a worse place?
When social media works right it's an amazing thing. It's just too bad that we don't use 90% of it right. As an example I've never given back to that commons when I see a stray pet.
https://www.theregister.com/offbeat/2010/05/14/facebook-foun...
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
Leaks of this data make it obvious to everyone how much a liability it is. Meta Execs have their data in this pile as well; soldiers and congresspeople are in Flock's database. How many senators do you think PornHub has an accurate taste profile for?
Of course there's harm that comes with leaking this data. But is the harm really greater than everyone being surveilled by everyone, everywhere?
It was a bold move to do full screen recording and hoping they would anonymize it.
If you just follow their rules this surveillance will be used to identify and sanction you.
I wonder whether they already thought of that, and are exempting from monitoring the roles most likely to generate "smoking gun" evidence.
Edit: I don’t know why I’m getting downvoted. Quite literally from the article:
> “We will only re-enable MCI when we are confident in the effectiveness of our data protection controls,” Kasriel said.
• Engineer (E3, entry level) $248.2K avg ∴ https://www.levels.fyi/companies/facebook/salaries/software-...
• Engineer (E5, senior level) $629.8K avg ∴ https://www.levels.fyi/companies/facebook/salaries/software-...
• Engineer (E7, principal) $1.69M avg ∴ https://www.levels.fyi/companies/facebook/salaries/software-...
• Engineer (E9, distinguished) $6.09M avg ∴ https://www.levels.fyi/companies/facebook/salaries/software-...
And so on with other roles, as you can see on that page.
One might argue that we get more for our sille euro wages. Also if we decide to leave the company, we are not completely f_ckd, since our families don ’t suddenly drop out of healthcare and other services.
SF and Meta make sense if you are going to try to be the cutting edge of conversations and tech.
If you just want to live your life?
As of Germany, I don’t follow currenct politics over there (not a German here, Finnish), but you guys have time and time again show that you can produce pretty much anything for the global markets as well or better than anyone else. Your problems are political, and you are your own worst enemy. Germany has enormous possibilities as a society, if you just get your shit together.
We pay more than 30000€ a year for mandatory public health insurance and more for modern treatments not covered by insurance. That’s not different than in US, except the funny salaries in Germany.
Society is not homogeneous. There are more and more elderly who will vote who promises them heaven. The young ones are ignored. There are many conflicts: young vs. old. The riches against rest 95%. The ones born on German soil and the ones arrived later mixing illiterate refugees and PhD expats together.
Interesting times. It’s nice to believe, that Germany can put the shit together. But there are too many forces at play. Let’s see. I am too old to move elsewhere.
The problem is that post-war Germany was founded on a promise of eternal prosperity, fuelled by our export industry, ever-increasing population counts, and cheap energy from coal (and later Russian gas). This engine was running so smoothly, we completely slept through digitisation, missed how China kept catching up with our engineers, and felt so reassured by the US entitlement to the world cop role that we shrunk the military further and further.
And now, all of that collapsed pretty much at the same time: Exports are staggering for a variety of reasons, people so few children our pension system costs explode, and energy prices have risen to the highest levels in Europe. All levels of the federal government are struggling with organisational problems, many have painted themselves into a corner, with incompatible silo solutions, and many still work on paper exclusively. In the meantime, the Chinese are able to produce many of the things we used to lead in at the same or better quality, and at lower prices - partly because a lot of strategic state subsidies are going on, partly due to stolen IP, but also due to a plain lack of innovation on our part. And we all know what happened with regard to the military recently.
Germans were never good with change, and right now, so many things change that most people are completely overwhelmed, oversaturated, anxious about the future, fatalistic, and angry. They get to each other's throats instead of looking ahead. Everyone is desperate for things slowing down at least a little bit, but they won't, and people know that.
There's lots of potential here, but I'm afraid on the great sinus curve of history, we're on a downward course right now. Unless something fundamentally changes, we'll see an extremist right-wing party take over power; many of its members openly celebrate Nazism.
I'm really trying to stay optimistic, but it's really getting harder every day.
Not for any length of time there aren't
Compared to say seattleLA/Newyork, the number obviously homeless is vanishingly small. Yes, tubes will have a beggar, but there won't be more than one of them. They also are rarely aggressive.
Even in Soho, where one of the main london hostels are for homeless people its not that bad.
Not sure I'd recommend it; there are less cartoonishly evil companies who still pay silly money in Europe available.
There are a small number of FAANG-ish companies who pay very high salaries in Berlin, London, Dublin, etc etc.
(And of course Zurich, but Zurich is Zurich.)
> Paying >100k is already super good, so they do probably around that.
I assure you that they pay more than that for halfway senior roles. Note that a lot of it would be in equity; the base salary would likely be in the 100-150k range, but one might get that again in equity.
if you are moving countries you keep your RSU allocation, but your wage is adjusted down/up based on local levels. (ie for london its .85 or something)
So you can rely on income to precisely the extent you are willing to destroy your soul.
However when you join you are given a bunch of shares that are paid out every quarter.
The wage is tied explicitly to your level, the number of shares is a bit more flexible. dpeending on what area you work in, and how in demand your role was, your shares make up between 10and 70% of your take home wage.
Every year you get "refreshers", again calculated centrally by level. For example an "E5" (the lowest level of senior engineer) may get a refresher of $150k of shares at january prices. Your performance grade is then used as a multiplier (ie bad == 0, ok == .75 good == *1.0 etc etc etc)
so even if youre not that successful you can amass a large amount of shares.
seems fair enough
I think the program was legal and morally fine.
Take into account that these are corporate computers, and the tracking is of work that the company is paying for, so the telemetry, which is highly valuable for analysis and automation, is rightfully theirs.
I also don't think that the purpose of the move was to manage workers and see if they slack off, it was to gather training data, but even if it were, I think that's normal? In any other job managers can, and are expected to, monitor employee productivity, they are paying for it, they need to ensure they are getting something worth. But again, I don't think that was the main goal here.
The computers are not intended for personal usage, if the employee wants to watch netflix, or porn, they are free to do so in their personal computers.
Imagine if this were a construction company, and there's a foreman watching the employees output, and the machine operators have their actions logged so that the machines can be automated in the future. Doesn't it sound reasonable? Is this very different at all?
So yeah, maybe a lot of people see Meta and computer tracking and immediately jump to 1984, but I kind of like nuance more than knee jerk reactions, or jumping into a narrative that we enjoy being angry about.
This is the cost of losing consumer trust over two decades of untrustworthy acts.
If you were hired with this as an explicit expectation, yes. It's one thing to know that your actions can be audited in case there's some sort of incident but imposing unlimited surveillance and using that information for the purpose of eliminating your job could be argued to be intimidation (ie. "we can't afford mass layoffs but aggressively monitoring employees will force the undesirables to quit").
No one likes the terms of their employment being changed against their will no matter how legal it might be. Why not make it opt-in in exchange for some other perks? If the data is valuable then compensate employees for the added burden/liability of total telemetry.
What did change is the culture and environment. While that term was always in the agreement, it was largely dormant, activated on an as-needed basis to troubleshoot issues, collect evidence for disciplinary actions or security investigations, etc. Now, it’s on 24x7.
> there's a foreman watching the employees output, and the machine operators have their actions logged so that the machines can be automated in the future. Doesn't it sound reasonable? Is this very different at all?
Yes. Every time these analogies to normalise mass surveillance are brought up, they mistake "another human or two can see you doing something in real time" with "a permanent record of every single action you ever take in your entire life, micromanaged down to the millisecond, accessible to many people over a period of years". That is, in fact, very different at all.
And if those are ok, what makes them different?
In all the examples you’ve given the monitoring is used to reduce the power imbalance between the public and vested interests with their own agenda.
For example, so the bank teller doesn’t steal from account holders.
For child care workers it’s to protect children in care. If it was used solely to gather information to fire potential whistleblowers people would have a problem with it too.
Considering that, for example, Meta management have a record of encouraging their staff to break copyright laws and lie about it, this surveillance probably isn’t designed to help society as a whole.
None of the examples I provided was made up.
It should be an unpleasant necessity, highly regulated. Not just something that you do on a blanket basis because you suffer under the delusion that you might create the next magic robot (I assume the driving force here is that Facebook is very, very behind in LLM-land.)
To all outraged HN readers considering a downvote:
Downvote is for non-constructive comments, not stuff you disagree with.