It's not a competition, but it really feels like they're all trying to win that title.
As for the most evil, the competition is fierce. Of course i don't think Backblaze or OVH is just as evil as Amazon or Google. Just like i don't think La Vache Qui Rit or Loué are as evil as Carrefour and Unilever. But in my view, if you're recruiting people and aiming for a better world, you should aim higher than "my employer is not actively supporting genocide". Otherwise, your utopian project has nothing very interesting nor moral about it.
But you started with most evil corporations. What did you mean by it and why did you bring it up?
Is your problem with EA that they work within the system and try to incrementally make it better? And you snide at them because of this?? And I have no idea what you mean about genocide.
This confirms my point that a lot of EA critiques come from literal extremists who think doing good within the system is “evil”.
I don't think they're making it better, that's the whole debate.
> I have no idea what you mean about genocide
That's just an example, referring to the Rohingya genocide or the Palestinian genocide, both of which have been more than facilitated by tech companies.
> think doing good within the system is “evil”
That's a misinterpretation of what i said. I think it's a valid goal on a personal level, but that it actually doesn't work (produces burnout or corruption of values). Therefore i think it's a wrong collective strategy that entirely misses the point (and centuries of experience) of how to change society for the better.
EDIT: for example, slavery abolition or women's right to vote in the Global North was not achieved by advocating to work for plantation owners and then giving away money to charity. And i don't know of a single historical example where that strategy worked.
How not? Their contribution is around 300k+ lives saved.
> That's just an example, referring to the Rohingya genocide or the Palestinian genocide, both of which have been more than facilitated by tech companies.
Do you think EA's would advocate for this? Or you suggest that some EA's merely working for a company that does this is already making them so evil and irredeemable?
> for example, slavery abolition or women's right to vote in the Global North was not achieved by advocating to work for plantation owners and then giving away money to charity
Do you then think that the only way to make change in society is to create revolutions and protests? Anyone who tries to help in any other way is not useful?