10 ms·
> Reputational damage is higher for entities with more money. In what world? Big business figured out a long time ago that most of the time their bad actions w
by pdkl95 11y ago
> Reputational damage is higher for entities with more money.
In what world? Big business figured out a long time ago that most of the time their bad actions won't be noticed by most people. The rest can often be fixed with some inexpensive spin and PR. Their reputation is only damaged when a scandal is very large and in the right place and time to be noticed.
A "billion dollar company" necessarily has a strong profit motive. It's also subject to the codes and regulations of the country in which they operate. The former damages their credibility (they will do what is profitable, not what is moral), and the latter makes communication platforms suspect (government involvement).
Of course, we don't have to speculate - this is Facebook. They are not only part of Prism, but their entire business is based on surveillance. Not only do they have zero credibility for respecting privacy, they are actively hostile.
- ikeboy 11y agoYou're disputing that it causes reputational damage, not that reputational damage scales with money. I'm not saying that they'd lose reputation from "not respecting privacy". That's not considered that bad by the general public. I'm saying that they'd lose reputation from "claiming to release a feature while lying through their teeth about it".