It would be pretty funny for a court to actually determine that a “just business” is synonymous with “doing evil”
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
443 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
70285 readers
3225 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Can’t fool me, they gave it away when they removed “Don’t be evil” from their motto back in 2015.
Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.
load more comments
(5 replies)
The first time I saw the slogan all I could think is "a normal not-evil person doesn't need to make such a disclaimer".
load more comments
(16 replies)
These are not mutually exclusive statements.
That venn diagram would make a functional wheel.
A publicly traded company is legally obligated to be evil.
Are you perhaps referring to the myth that the law requires companies to maximize shareholder profits above all else?
Ok I was ready to disparage your link since the domain ends in .ai, but actually that was a decent read and a pretty good argument. I'm glad to have better knowledge of the actual court rulings.
I didn't even look at the URL, to be honest; it was the most layman-friendly and succinct article that was from the last few years that popped up in a quick search, but there's plenty of similar articles from other sources if anyone doubts this one.
There is no law that says they must. But shareholders are justified to fire C suite who don't. And realistically shareholders only care about profits. Therefore they effectively must. Regardless of it not being "law".
Who/Where are these people that believe that? I have heard people say shareholders only care about profits, but I have never heard anyone say it was a law to maximize them. Regardless, they do love profits more than anyone or anything at any company. Companies also like to keep their shareholders happy. Evil comes about becuase of these.
Is profit at any cost morally irresponsible?
No, it's the consumers who are wrong.
We can and should no longer accept "it's just good business" as justification for morally reprehensible actions.
Accepting it is what makes it good business. We stop accepting it, it costs money and then it's no longer good business.
Business is purely profit driven. We need to make morally wrong things costly. Orders of magnitude more costly than doing the right thing.
Blame the ayer AND fix the game.
While I definitely agree with parts of this, that making it costly to do amoral things would be good, I have to say that the rest is exactly what I'm calling out. By saying that profit is the only goal of business, and that being purely profit-driven is an amoral position, we give the greedy and amoral a tremendous free pass. We blame the victims, consumers, because they continue to support these greedy people with their money, when we should be holding the greedy fully accountable. They are the problem and existing purely for greed is not an amoral state of being. It is quite the opposite, and that is what we must no longer accept.
No offense to you, I don't think you mean any harm by your comment, but it served as a good example of the mindset I am trying to address.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Ah, so that's why they changed their slogan from "don't be evil" to "don't not be a business."
"Google - Business with electrolytes"
It's what shareholders crave
Slavery was just business at some point, what kind of justification is this?!
load more comments
(2 replies)
Capitalism is a curse that instills the most evil traits in all of humanity.
Worse; it rewards them.
No, businesses are people. Corporations have fought to make that a distinction. So therefore it can be evil. Can’t have it both ways.
Oh Mitt Romney, what a legacy.
Business are soulless evils
It takes people (souls) for a business to exist.
some people are evil.
load more comments
(1 replies)
“Hey man, just doing our job to maximize shareholder value”
"Nothing ~~Personal~~ evil, Kid"
"Just Business"
You can see how one could easily be confused…
No one thinks they're the bad guy. That doesn't change the fact that their actions speak for themselves.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
You might not expect an antitrust trial focused on Google’s overwhelming dominance in the year 2023 to spend a lot of time talking about Internet Explorer circa 2005.
One exhibit proved particularly interesting: a letter from Google’s then-top lawyer David Drummond, sent on July 22nd, 2005, to Microsoft’s then-general counsel Brad Smith.
Microsoft was tech’s dominant player and a ruthless competitor, Pichai argued, and it was doing an acceptable thing — prioritizing its own products — in a uniquely shady way.
“I realized for the first time the internet would touch most of humanity and it was a once-in-a-generation opportunity.” He quoted Google’s original mission without missing a beat, and said that “if anything, it’s more timeless and relevant than ever before.”
Google uses the rev-share structure to incentivize Android OEMs like Samsung, HTC, and Motorola to promote their devices, he said, and even maintain them better over time.
(When Judge Amit Mehta asked how that worked, Pichai said Google makes some of its rev-share money dependent on devices getting security updates.
The original article contains 1,280 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 87%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
view more: next ›