3 ms·

I don't have that view of HN, it's just that most of us understand that corporations are not evil by default, they are not part of a bigger scheme that wants to

by atmosx 11y ago

I don't have that view of HN, it's just that most of us understand that corporations are not evil by default, they are not part of a bigger scheme that wants to enslave the world. That said, I believe that most HN are very privacy-aware. Indeed one of the reasons Echo wasn't a huge success is privacy invasion. If you read the latest threads regarding Paris Attacks, you'll see that most HN users are ready to give up security for freedom (if there ever was such a trade-off, I'm not even sure anymore).

Pyxl101 11y ago
> Indeed one of the reasons Echo wasn't a huge success is privacy invasion Most modern phones passively listen to your voice too, and people carry those with them everywhere. They are present in the most intimate situations, rather than (e.g.) just in your living room. So I don't think there's a reason for people to feel differently about Echo than about Cortana on Xbox, or "Ok Google", or any other voice activated interface.
dingaling 11y ago
> it's just that most of us understand that corporations are not evil by default Perhaps not evil but they are amoral. If a course of action is not illegal and would increase revenue then a company really should be doing it. Particularly if their competitors are doing so.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
> it's just that most of us understand that corporations are not evil by default That's not an objective fact; it's kind of condescending to present it that way. I would say that they corp's are amoral. >they are not part of a bigger scheme that wants to enslave the world. Corp's act in the self-interest of the directors without regard for whether their actions increase/decrease "world enslavement".
- walterbell 11y ago
  There are also legal differences in corporate structures, e.g. benefit corporations, https://medium.com/@ystrickler/resist-and-thrive-1d36819853ca#.ccb5nb4c4 https://medium.com/@ystrickler/resist-and-thrive-1d36819853c... "We want Kickstarter to be similarly in sync with society. Earlier this year we became a Public Benefit Corporation. This means we are legally obligated to consider the impact of our decisions on society, not just our shareholders. Though we are still a for-profit company, as a PBC it’s very different from the expectation that for profit companies maximize shareholder value above all. It acknowledges and embraces that you are a part of a larger community."
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    Yeah, I know, there are exceptions and special cases, I'm talking about your ANSI standard corporation, and I think that skepticism is prudent until something like the PBC becomes the dominant corporate structure (or until you can buy iced tea in Hell, whichever comes first).

by atmosx 11y ago

Pyxl101 11y ago

> Indeed one of the reasons Echo wasn't a huge success is privacy invasion Most modern phones passively listen to your voice too, and people carry those with them everywhere. They are present in the most intimate situations, rather than (e.g.) just in your living room. So I don't think there's a reason for people to feel differently about Echo than about Cortana on Xbox, or "Ok Google", or any other voice activated interface.

dingaling 11y ago

> it's just that most of us understand that corporations are not evil by default Perhaps not evil but they are amoral. If a course of action is not illegal and would increase revenue then a company really should be doing it. Particularly if their competitors are doing so.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

> it's just that most of us understand that corporations are not evil by default That's not an objective fact; it's kind of condescending to present it that way. I would say that they corp's are amoral. >they are not part of a bigger scheme that wants to enslave the world. Corp's act in the self-interest of the directors without regard for whether their actions increase/decrease "world enslavement".

walterbell 11y ago
There are also legal differences in corporate structures, e.g. benefit corporations, https://medium.com/@ystrickler/resist-and-thrive-1d36819853ca#.ccb5nb4c4 https://medium.com/@ystrickler/resist-and-thrive-1d36819853c... "We want Kickstarter to be similarly in sync with society. Earlier this year we became a Public Benefit Corporation. This means we are legally obligated to consider the impact of our decisions on society, not just our shareholders. Though we are still a for-profit company, as a PBC it’s very different from the expectation that for profit companies maximize shareholder value above all. It acknowledges and embraces that you are a part of a larger community."
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Yeah, I know, there are exceptions and special cases, I'm talking about your ANSI standard corporation, and I think that skepticism is prudent until something like the PBC becomes the dominant corporate structure (or until you can buy iced tea in Hell, whichever comes first).