To quote Upton Sinclair:

> “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

But there's something bigger that you allude to, which is that very few peoplel think of themselves as the bad guys. People separate themselves from the harm they contribute to or they dehumanize the targets of that harm and then argue they deserve it somehow or simply that this is necessary for some reason (eg lesser evil arguments).

I eschew the concept of "bad guys" in general because it's a non-argument. Philosophically and politically it's known as "idealism" [1][2]. It's saying "we are the good guys because we are the good guys" and everyone think they're the good guys.

The alternative to this is materialism [3] and historical materialism [4]. There is no metaphysical or inherent goodness (or badness). You are the sum of your actions and their impact on the world. Likewise you are a product of your material world.

So we don't really need to go down the rabbit hole of figuring out if, say, FB/Meta or Palantir is a "good" company or if the employees are or feel "good". We can simply look at the impact and whether that impact was intentional or otherwise foreseeable.

And that record for Meta really isn't good eg Myanmar and the Rohingya genocide [5] or FB's real world harm from spreading misinformation [6].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism_in_international_rela...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

[5]: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

[6]: https://theconversation.com/facebook-data-reveal-the-devasta...