The Meta employee does as they are told. Your neighbor gives money to Zuck and asks him to tell the Meta employee what to do, sharing in profit with Zuck. Yes, he is worse. Way worse. Drug mule vs. drug financier type worse. He can also stop any time with a few clicks. What's stopping him?

> The Meta employee does as they are told.

Your argument erases the employee's biggest moral choice: did the Meta employee just spawn a Meta employee? No, they chose to work there. You assign maximal agency to someone buying an index fund and minimal agency to someone who voluntarily spends 40 hours a week advancing Meta's objectives. That's backwards. (Or, more likely, a purposeful troll comment).

Did the index fund just drop in someone's lap? No. They chose to place orders to turn cash into stocks that control Meta's objectives. Every argument you make about an employee you can make about an investor. The difference is, as I said, the chain of command goes one way, and history has something to say about the relative culpability of each end. You may want to reflect on that.

At the end of the day, how someone spends 40 hours a week is as much your business as how someone spends their money is my business. That you fail to see it is indicative of your own biases.

By your logic, a man who murders someone with a Smith & Wesson is just as culpable as someone who owns some shares of $SWBI.

I'll repeat myself: what a mindset!

Wrong. It's someone who owns shares in some LLC that does contract killing and hired the hit man, and many others. You keep trying to skirt around the obvious, which looks very ridiculous.