Irony as Meta staff unhappy about running surveillance software on work PCs (theregister.com)
180 points by jjgreen 4 hours ago
softwaredoug an hour ago
This article is just a summary of other articles. Specifically these two more detailed ones:
https://www.itnews.com.au/news/meta-to-start-capturing-emplo...
https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-new-ai-tool-tracks-staf...
ramon156 an hour ago
> "This makes me super uncomfortable. How do we opt out?" was the top-rated comment in response to the internal announcement, according to a post on Meta's internal workplace communications site seen by Business Insider."
Have people lost their spine? seriously, quit your job. this is insane. why are americans putting up with this bullshit?
rdevilla 20 minutes ago
Right on. Meta employees, fuck you for building the surveillance state we live in today. You are the fucking scourge and death of the 2000s internet. Eat shit, I care not for your "privacy concerns."
cannonpr 14 minutes ago
xnorswap 37 minutes ago
"Companies should be able to bully their staff, since their staff are free to quit" is not compatible with a decent society.
amiga386 22 minutes ago
2ndorderthought 14 minutes ago
mystraline 6 minutes ago
vasco 25 minutes ago
benbristow an hour ago
Have you seen the salaries Meta pay?
embedding-shape 32 minutes ago
jagged-chisel 31 minutes ago
2ndorderthought 16 minutes ago
I have no idea why you are being downvoted. This is probably the most rational take.
Some level of sacrifice is required when you feel super uncomfortable at work in the US. I get the arguments of "I can't lose my pay", but at the same time, if you aren't aligned with how they treat you now, what do you think they will be doing with that data? What does 1 year from now look like? 2 years? Do you think it will be less invasive? Or will they be tracking your eye movements as well, facial sentiment?
mc32 an hour ago
Exactly.
It’s the same defeatist attitude people who get an extra three months of pay to train their Eastern European or Indian replacements.
They will gladly take the three months pay to train a replacement. I’d quit on the spot. Let them figure it out.
Traubenfuchs an hour ago
The majority of people working at Meta will never ever again in their lives get a job offer that good. Meta knows this and doesn't care about many of them quitting. They can currently scoop up an endless supply of developers that have memorized every single leetcode hard, system design and """behavioral""" interview question.
rob74 20 minutes ago
lonelyasacloud 27 minutes ago
bauerd an hour ago
Health insurance and opportunity cost
leetrout an hour ago
Money, of course. Both greed and comfort.
sheepscreek 30 minutes ago
bdangubic 18 minutes ago
got two words for you - money
figmert an hour ago
> Have people lost their spine? seriously, quit your job. this is insane. why are americans putting up with this bullshit?
While I agree with you, sadly not everyone is in a position to just quit so easily, and even if the majority of the company quits, there are always people who are desperate enough to do the work and not complain.
miroljub 35 minutes ago
There are other methods broadly classified as self-defense that an employee can apply against a company and its officials who attack their privacy.
Let Meta and its officials feel the consequences of their actions.
KumaBear 21 minutes ago
ben_w an hour ago
> Have people lost their spine?
Yes, but this being Meta who are one of the several poster-children for surveillance capitalism, this comes across as more a face-leopard than a missing spine: https://old.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/
> seriously, quit your job. this is insane. why are americans putting up with this bullshit?
Have you seen the job market lately? Not just in the USA, but also in the USA, there's a lot of people holding on to whatever they've got because it's hard to find replacement work.
pinkmuffinere 37 minutes ago
> Have people lost their spine? seriously, quit your job. this is insane. why are americans putting up with this bullshit?
Come on, they may be caring for children, sick relatives, or have a million other reasons to want a stable, well-paying job. There are many well-justified reasons they could have to stay, and yet want to opt-out. "Just quit your job" is extremely out-of-touch.
embedding-shape 30 minutes ago
nacozarina 14 minutes ago
good times create weak men and we had it so good for so long it ruined us
yfw an hour ago
Read Careless People. The fish rots from the head
nsbk an hour ago
Surveillance for thee, not for me
louiereederson an hour ago
Surveillance for all
bell-cot an hour ago
That would imply that Zuck is being surveilled.
isodev an hour ago
breppp 20 minutes ago
poulpy123 an hour ago
I don't see what can be trained with that, but it would be a nightmare to be always recorded like that
vanviegen 10 minutes ago
You could use this to train an AI to behave like a Meta-employee. Meta seems to like the behavior of Meta-employees, or it wouldn't have hired so many. It would just prefer to have more of this behavior for less, so they'll try to use clankers instead of employees to produce the key strokes and mouse clicks.
derelicta an hour ago
Probably to detect all variations of dangerous words such as "union", "genocide" and "peace".
Devasta 19 minutes ago
Meta employees shocked to find out they work for Meta.
mykowebhn an hour ago
s/Irony/Schadenfreude/g
fhennig an hour ago
In the actual article (not the headline) there is no mention of staff reporting to be unhappy.
thejokeisonme an hour ago
The actual irony is that this very title is the ragebait, as they say in the article:
> .. so it can keep them clicking on ragebait ..
wzdd an hour ago
Quotes from unhappy staff are in the Business Insider article which the article links to in its third paragraph.
fhennig an hour ago
Ah I saw it now through another HN submission.
bossyTeacher 15 minutes ago
Not unhappy enough to leave though.
jjgreen 4 hours ago
Full title prefixed "Magnificent"
villgax 24 minutes ago
gonna cry
joe_mamba an hour ago
Man, I sure wonder if those engineers building Palantir's, Flock's, and other surveillance SW right now (hello if you're reading this), will have this 20/20 hindsight "oh shit" epiphany moment, when the product they helped build is gonna be used against them or their kids in the future. Kind of like when Dr. Frankenstein finds his end at the hands of his creation.
Those SW devs probably think that doing a deal with the devil in exchange for a higher than average income now, will allow them to build an upper class lifestyle where they'll be safe from the government's jackboots, but news flash, NO you won't, unless you're part of the insider-trading presidential Epstein Island elite pedo-class, you're also on the menu.
Zuckerberg, Gates, Karp, Thiel, all have doomsday bunkers on private islands to escape the societal fallout of their actions. Do you?
outime 32 minutes ago
I guess these individuals think like "if I don't do this someone else will, and we'll end up in the same situation - except I'll have fewer millions - so I might as well choose the lesser of two evils".
Some people may have refused to do these things - you just aren't aware of them. It's unrealistic though to think that in a globalized world, individuals would share the same ethics and/or intelligence.
TacticalCoder an hour ago
> ... unless you're part of the insider-trading presidential Epstein Island elite pedo-class, you're also not safe from government overreach
But how did that turn out for Ghislaine Maxwell though? We aren't seeing her much in the posh NYC parties anymore are we?
And something also has to be said about public shame when sentences like: "Bill Gates got even more STDs than Windows got viruses and that lead to his wife quitting him".
I'd rather be a small millionaire than a billionaire having to suffer headlines like that.
joe_mamba 38 minutes ago
Bear in mind your examples are only those few who were stupid/unlucky enough to get exposed and caught, ending up as patsies to parrade to the public as fake "proof" that the system they pay taxes and answer to, somehow isn't corrupt to the core and working against them.
Meanwhile other Epstein Island clients like Howard Lutnick are sitting next to the president right now(himself a client), and former client Bill Clinton used to be president, and their families amassed generational wealth, security and political influence that no mere mortal will ever be able to have no matter how hard they work. There's no justice here.
notTheLastMan an hour ago
Fam, what should we actually do about this?
If you want to be real for a minute, we all lived through the freedom of Covid WFH. We all did dishes and billed for it. We all told ourselves 'I needed a break, it helps me think about the problem'. (And that was true, one day I was stuck on an 8 queens problem and I ran a half marathon, when I finished I had the solution)
But... common everyone... we are humans. We take the path of least resistance.
Does anyone waste money or time on things that dont matter intentionally? If I'm making 200k a year with 0 output, I'll probably work on something else in the meantime.
If I'm in office, I don't think I need surveillance, I'm on the clock and its my manager's job to supervise. WFH? I get it.
This idea is as old as the panopticon, and Michel Foucault talks about this as well.
As I get older and run my own company, I find my juniors and seniors need to be supervised. My mid-levels are fine. Juniors dont know when to ask for help. Seniors are complacent. Mid-levels seem to have something to prove.
Can labor make a deal with management? I'll give you WFH for surveillance software.
mellosouls 39 minutes ago
Monitor output. No need for surveillance.
Surveillance = lack of trust and poor understanding of what counts as productivity. Essentially it's a great indicator of poor management.
notTheLastMan 28 minutes ago
I agree with this kind of... I did automate $4.5M/yr in labor, but I probably only worked 10 hours a week and billed for 40.
For 5 years everyone was happy, but I kind of knew what I was doing was wrong.
Not that I think I could have automated $16M/yr, but I def knew I was billing for doing dishes.
seanclayton 16 minutes ago
_heimdall 34 minutes ago
> the freedom of Covid WFH
That's an interesting phrase. Yes, working from home comes with more freedom over your day than working in an office. During the pandemic, though, it was largely forced as we were told you can't go to the office, or the beach, or the gym, etc. That wasn't really freedom as much as a house arrest sentence.
The key here, though, is that Meta is at least claiming to be doing this to train AI not to spy on how efficient or compliant their WFH employees are.
KumaBear 19 minutes ago
With enough data and time many of those jobs will be rendered obsolete.
eloisius 36 minutes ago
I agree. In fact, even ensuring the employee is at the work station moving the mouse and pressing the keys is failing to measure their productive engagement at work. How do you know they are cogitating to the company’s benefit at all times? Many employees may rationalize time theft as “taking a second of mental rest” but it’s a breach of their employment contract, and potentially criminal embezzlement, all the same.
In the future, hopefully we can use Neuralink-like technology to quantify worker compliance and cut the wasteful sludge that want to “rest and vest” at the expense of the honest and hard working executives.
isodev 40 minutes ago
> its my manager's job to supervise
No it isn’t. The fault with your logic is that you assume people work because they’re supervised.
Macha 41 minutes ago
> We all did dishes and billed for it.
I don't think intellectual work is an always on hands on keyboard task. When in the office there's plenty of extended water cooler conversations or non work related conversations at work stations. Indeed I've often seen these cited as reasons for RTO.
notTheLastMan 27 minutes ago
This is basically my case against RTO... I am a talker. I wont stop talking. I actually waste people's time talking philosophy.
ducttape12 23 minutes ago
If you feel the need to babysit your employees you probably need new employees.
Why are your seniors not unblocking your juniors? And if your seniors are complacent maybe they just need a good challenge.
stunseed 26 minutes ago
Supervised != surveilled
No human should be surveilled on work. And if you're going to have surveillance on me, then I want surveillance on you. Would you be fine with that?
RugnirViking an hour ago
I really don't like the conflation of all meta staff with the strategy of the massive multinational corpo-monster that is meta itself. Its very easy to suggest that someone should leave their job on ideological grounds when its someone else you've never met. I don't work at meta, I work at a large non-tech company.
I've been seeing it more and more these days. People do it for programmers as a whole too, or scientists. Concerns about job market layoffs due to ai dismissed with "Programmers surprised as leopards eat their own face" as though dave who does the database at your local high school is responsible in even some small sense for the effects of AI in society.
There are actual people responsible for these problems. People who are not programmers. Who have far less in common with you or me than we both do with some random backend engineer at meta.
dgellow an hour ago
Dave working at meta is indeed in part responsible for meta doings. Yes leaving has a cost. That’s the whole point. Meta actions also have associated costs, it is just externalized and doesn’t impact Dave directly
csoups14 an hour ago
We should focus on effective means for change. Focusing external influence on low-level individuals with no decision making power might feel good but it has accomplished a sum total of nothing in the past. Why would we think it will make the situation better this time? They swap people in and out of projects all the time and it's really not disruptive at all. The only ways these tech behemoths have made any meaningful positive changes is through sustained governmental pressure either through oversight or regulation.
lapcat an hour ago
RugnirViking an hour ago
As I said before. Its very easy to suggest that someone should leave their job on ideological grounds when its someone else you've never met.
You have to understand, this hypothetical guy has never met zuck. He's quite possibly never met anyone who has never met zuck. He may well not live in america.
The job market for programmers is not good right now. Estimates put average time in unemployment at 12+ months. Would you inflict this on your family? Because a different part of the giant company you work at did bad stuff? people you've never met, working on a product you've never worked on, did bad stuff? as opposed to all the other extremely moral giant companies you could be working for?
This is, of course, oversimplified. Dave was probably laid off months ago anyway. Was he in some sense responsible for his own redundancy?
I understand the feeling that we have to be able to pin some portion of blame or responsibility on companies. They are often able to launder responsibility through their sheer size, and their byzantine processes. But there are real people responsible for setting strategy! the people at the bottom do sometimes resign out of protest at immoral actions! but it has to be pretty naked to come to that. There are literally management strategy books about how to build departments to avoid workers realizing the purpose of their work so you can get them to do things they disagree with.
wpietri an hour ago
bigfatkitten an hour ago
SecretDreams an hour ago
snaking0776 18 minutes ago
ori_b 7 minutes ago
> I really don't like the conflation of all meta staff with the strategy of the massive multinational corpo-monster that is meta itself.
We can separate it out. The things at Meta that had no staff working on them can be blamed on the corporation, and the rest can be blamed on the people working to enable it.
tacker2000 an hour ago
If you work there, you are part of the problem, there is no excuse for that.
Nobody is forcing you to work there.
embedding-shape an hour ago
If they were a cleaner or some other position that people typically take up because they have no alternatives, then I'd understand and sympathize a bit, you usually don't have any choice and can't really help it, you need to survive somehow, that's OK.
But most of the people working in technology positions at Meta and Facebook are not in that sort of position, they're usually well paid already, and could easily change jobs if they had a tiny bit of spine and could sacrifice getting paid less. Internally they'll reason and justify why they can't just leave, but from the outside it's embarrassingly obvious they don't really care in the end.
iso1631 an hour ago
> Who have far less in common with you or me than we both do with some random backend engineer at meta
Half the people on HN want to be the billionaires who are chummy with Zuck, Musk, etc
Temporarily embarrassed millionaires are one thing, but the last 15 years has shown that many American tech workers can get a small slice of the enourmous wealth.
When you've got $10m in assets, even if they return just 1% you are still getting more money than the average worker, at $100k a year.
However someone with $10b in assets is so far beyond you it's crazy. At 1% they are growing at $270k a day.
Actual growth is more like 10% than 1%. The wealthy make millions a day, and still want more. You can't spend that much no matter how much your gluttonous lifestyle is, not without significantly trampling on others.