4 ms·

Google's leadership is taking a strong stance against China. A stronger one than governments are willing to take[1]. If they're prioritizing ethics over the p

Google's leadership is taking a strong stance against China. A stronger one than governments are willing to take[1]. If they're prioritizing ethics over the profits of the company, they're just an anomaly. The responsible parties could be fired for stating so, since the stockholders employ them to prioritize the profits of the company over all other non-legal concerns. If they're doing it because it increases their profits, then it is bigger news: it means "Don't be evil" works. The market is more closely aligned with "bettering the world" than most people believe. Corporations have always seemed less ethical than governments in the past, so it's a very exciting possibility. The author argues that Google's actions in China were not motivated by ethics. Unlike the author, I think that is an exciting thought. [1] At least in the last 20 years or so.

barry-cotter 17y ago
Corporations have always seemed less ethical than governments in the past, so it's a very exciting possibility. Yes, and that's why corporations have killed far more people and blighted far more lives in the past X years than governments.
- cellis 17y ago
  Please examine the complexity of the above statement.
  - barry-cotter 17y ago
    Corporations (legal but not natural persons) have historically caused less deaths than states (sovereign entities with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.) In this meaning states too are corporations just a special type. Joint stock corporations without a defined end of life are an innovation dating from approximately 1500. I contend that on a net, and probably a gross accounting of lives lost due to action by states have consistently outnumbered those due to corporations. Given that states have a monopoly on violence it is a trivial consequence that their actions will cause more deaths than corporate actions. Sovereign actors typically exceed non-sovereign ones in capability for violence. Even where this is not true the corporation is constrained by the will of it's sponsor state, and as such ultimate responsibility lies with the state sponsor of the corporation. Given that we have no examples of sovereign corporations (sub-type, profit maximising) little information is contained in my original snarky comment. I contend, in agreement with the Emperor of the Rightwing Wingnutosphere Mencius Moldbug, that a sovereign entity with a clear goal of profit seeking will be less murderous than one without a clearly defined and measurable goal (all of them, barring the Holy See, which aims to convert all humanity to Roman Catholicism.) tl:dr Given the vast differences in capabilty between sovereign and non-sovereign corporations the difference in their headcounts is a trivial consequence. Conceded.

barry-cotter 17y ago

Corporations have always seemed less ethical than governments in the past, so it's a very exciting possibility. Yes, and that's why corporations have killed far more people and blighted far more lives in the past X years than governments.

cellis 17y ago
Please examine the complexity of the above statement.
- barry-cotter 17y ago
  Corporations (legal but not natural persons) have historically caused less deaths than states (sovereign entities with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.) In this meaning states too are corporations just a special type. Joint stock corporations without a defined end of life are an innovation dating from approximately 1500. I contend that on a net, and probably a gross accounting of lives lost due to action by states have consistently outnumbered those due to corporations. Given that states have a monopoly on violence it is a trivial consequence that their actions will cause more deaths than corporate actions. Sovereign actors typically exceed non-sovereign ones in capability for violence. Even where this is not true the corporation is constrained by the will of it's sponsor state, and as such ultimate responsibility lies with the state sponsor of the corporation. Given that we have no examples of sovereign corporations (sub-type, profit maximising) little information is contained in my original snarky comment. I contend, in agreement with the Emperor of the Rightwing Wingnutosphere Mencius Moldbug, that a sovereign entity with a clear goal of profit seeking will be less murderous than one without a clearly defined and measurable goal (all of them, barring the Holy See, which aims to convert all humanity to Roman Catholicism.) tl:dr Given the vast differences in capabilty between sovereign and non-sovereign corporations the difference in their headcounts is a trivial consequence. Conceded.