It absolutely does! There's a lot evidence to support this claim. The smartest, most ethical people leave first. Eventually replacement employees will cost more and more to attract. The company will implode in a toxic talent vacuum. Shareholders will flee as margins decline. The company will have to take increasing user hostile actions to survive. Users will flee. Advertisers will flee.

And FB ceases to exist. A loud message will echo through silicon valley fit years to come.

The only ethical decision for the engineers to make is to quit. Thus all employees there are mathematically unethical. They are writing the code that executes the immoral decisions.

Quitting doesn't help. For it to mean anything, there has to be a plausible alternative plan that the quitters are supporting.

What is the plausible internal plan of the agitators and activists inside FB and other firms? They have none, beyond systematically ban more and more users who violate ever more bizarre and ad-hoc purity rules. That's not a plan.

Moreover, quitting over this stuff isn't a one way street.

Facebook is not an evil company. I wouldn't work there today but that's exactly because of their vicious internal partisan politics that make these firms so unfriendly to anyone who isn't strongly on the left. For anyone who thinks corporate diversity programmes are sexist against men, Brexit is a commendable move towards localism, that sometimes Trump actually might have a point, etc, Facebook is just not attractive to those people today.

It sounds like Zuck may be getting a grip on his workforce and professionalising it. If so, for every activist quitter they'll suddenly find they're more appealing to 10 more normal employees who just don't want their workplace to be a political battleground. Moreover people get more conservative as they age, and they also get more experienced. So they may suddenly discover they have access to more experienced senior engineers who were previously, uh, content with their current job.