Posted as a response to this tweet. Let me address that as someone who’s seen both sides (boomeranged from big tech to startups then back). The very fact that the acronym exists (and that your brought it up!) reflects that people care about those companies more than others.They’re global brands associated with winning products . Getting in is hard and provides a sense of validation. People feel great associating themselves with these companies.  Oh and it’s great for your resume, your Linkedin SEO and your overall market perception; opens many doors.

On to the work (impact, scale, …)
You should not look at these as a monoliths but multiple sub-groups of differing scale, purpose, talent, and importance. So your mileage may vary and there is a decently large variance in experience.  At the good end you could be working at large scale/high revenue product with industry-best talent, ample resources, tons of exec attention and issues that the rest of your industry will encounter a decade later . At the bad end you could be in an unloved part of the product, doing grunt work, fighting for resources and help from other teams, and seeing good people leave . With the right team, there’s opportunity for insane impact. Anecdote: As a fresh 21-year old tweaking the knobs of the anti-spam systems at Facebook, my changes reached 200 million people . Nuts!

However, the base case is still great irrespective of where you are. Comp and benefits are at or above market. There is a sense of work life balance. You can try things out and build a career here. - lots of internal career mobility . Low/No risk of the firm folding. The internal tools at lot of these companies are 3-10 years ahead of the market because their scale and problems are 3-10 years ahead of market.

At extremes, BigTech has talent, resources and ability to take long bets that is rare elsewhere. They’re laying undersea cables, inventing new languages, designing custom chips and doing fundamental research . Even peripheral exposure can here feel awespiring.