Based on your unnecessarily toxic stance, I really don't think your FB candidate was losing out on anything.

Coming back to revise my earlier comment and provide some counterpoints to your counterpoints here.

If they can get hired by Facebook they're good enough to work elsewhere

How are they supposed to get hired elsewhere if people like you won't hire them?

Plenty of people do shitty things that make the world a worse place for money, this is kinda my point. They made that choice and put their ethics aside for that money.

Do you personally always make the most ethical decision in every scenario? Have you never made a decision that only benefitted you?

I'm sure there are plenty of "cool" people working there, but they're happy to be a cog in a shitty machine that makes the world a worse place.

People have different motivations for things; I'm sure that not everyone working at Facebook believes in the mission or is sold on the product. A lot of folks make choices based on what's best for them at the time, and there is nothing wrong with that.

FB hasn't turned shitty over night, it's been shitty for nearly 10 years now. They know what they were signing up for (unlike most of their users).

Very true, but I say again: Folks have different motivations, some of which may be what benefits them at the time (e.g., career development, pay, location, etc.). Also, I'm sure that not everyone at Facebook is a long-timer.

The issue I take with your stance is that it's an extreme, broad generalization for a group of people that you know almost nothing about. You seem to want to shame them for working at a company that you disagree with ethically, and you're punishing them for doing so.

I feel like this says a lot more about you than it does them. You wouldn't hire someone who has designed something for cigarettes? Why?

Comparing Facebook's effects on people with cigarettes is pretty dumb man. What are you even talking about at this point?

True, as a few of you have said, it does speak to John P's worldview (obvious, how would it otherwise?). All John P is suggesting is that it says a lot about the people who choose to work for Facebook despite the assumed ethical and moral implications of supporting a company that many people believe to be attacking an open web, among many other allegations, and thus, chooses not to hire those who aren't doing the due diligence to understand those implications, amidst a wide open job market that designers (and developers) have. The applicant isn't going to go hungry.

However, without an interview to get a feel for the person's competence and general fit for the company, sure, it's a bit brash to deny him/her the opportunity without a chance to meet and gauge interest for both parties. But at the end of the day, it's John's choice and in his best interest, for him and his company, to hire how he sees fit, barring obvious discrimination policies.

Why don't we withhold our personal attacks when we disagree with someone's outlook and generate a constructive conversation around this, acknowledging that there will be disagreements and potentially negative views appearing throughout. Not one of us here can truthfully say their worldview isn't without some sort of cynicism based on the actions of others or a larger entity. Facebook just so happens to be the target, and the fallout of its actions brings us many new things to consider, including hiring.