Replace “tech” in this scenario with “ammunition”.

Does your argument still hold up?

>”employees are making the actual thing that inflicts harm while consumers' actions are completely diffused and many steps removed from the harm they cause.”

“employees are making the actual thing that inflicts harm while consumers' actions directly cause deadly harm.”

I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t be voting with our wallets and supporting these people but your initial argument is flawed. They produce goods precisely because consumers buy them…

> Replace “tech” in this scenario with “ammunition”. Does your argument still hold up?

Can you explain why you think it wouldn't?

Tons of principled engineers choose not to pursue opportunities at military contractors, for instance, and this is not widely seen as unreasonable.

I didn't say "tech", I said "ad-tech" and "big tech" (meaning ad-tech like Google, not TSMC) which aren't morally neutral like ammunition is. Invasion of privacy and exploitation of private information is an inherent part of their business model.