Paul GrahamVerified account

the morality of it becomes more important as the playing field becomes bigger. So, yes, it's not any less morally reprehensible to do it at a small scale, but the stakes are higher so the scrutiny follows

How can you care about something if you don't know it exists or it doesn't directly impact your life? Facebook impacts pretty much everyone's life at this point. When they make morally questionable decisions, that opens them to scrutiny. This is a bizarre hill to climb...

PG you are impossible to pin down

Telecom... Credit cards... It's not even that the public doesn't know about these *more* intrusive, *more* comprehensive surveillance comps -- they've been written about and documented exhaustingly... It's seasoning, conditioning, and a host of cognitive biases...

"presumably". I don't care because I don't know and when I do know I do care. Tons of smaller companies I avoid because they are unethical.

You’re not uncovering any new ground here, though. We know that Facebook’s power, and as follows, responsibility, comes from the fact that nearly everyone is a user. If you’re selling users’ personal info, the more users means more people are vulnerable, means more scrutiny.

There are dozens of companies who create complete psychographic profiles of people based on their private communication, interests, events, and charity contributions? Which ones would those be, precisely?

This is quite a presumption.

The more concentrated power an entity has, the more accountability it needs. It's why we scrutinize US senators more than local council members. One has greater power to harm than the other. Somehow that's hypocrisy to you?

True, it seems the industry sometimes cares too little that companies have good people as founders, too often it's about ability to execute and snag a 10x valuation. People care about Zuck because a guy with questionable ethics was enabled to build massive infrastructure.