5 ms·

I agree with your analysis but what happens when China or a country like NK is the new economic powerhouse to please over EU ? Will US companies lobby the US th

I agree with your analysis but what happens when China or a country like NK is the new economic powerhouse to please over EU ? Will US companies lobby the US the other way then ? It's the Stallman argument again: don't defend privacy (free software) because it's convenient (hey, it's free and high tech enough), defend privacy because it's a principle that aligns with your ethics, not your economic interests.

milesrout 10y ago
I think the other way to look at it is this: Doing good things for bad reasons is better than doing bad things for bad reasons, even if it's not as good as doing good things for good reasons.
- boomboomsubban 10y ago
  "Better" isn't enough, in the future the same bad reasons will have bad results.
- thr0waway1239 10y ago
  >> Doing good things for bad reasons is better than doing bad things for bad reasons The other comment mentions the problem with this stance. But it is worthwhile to point out that this is pretty much par for the course for Microsoft, seeing as they are suddenly embracing open source with a vengeance despite being the single biggest factor in its suppression for 15+ of the last 20 years. I remember seeing someone commenting how they are impressed with the new Microsoft. To which I thought "Really? Did they actually have any other choice?" To be sure, I will also add my view that I don't view any of the tech giants as having a moral high ground over MSFT in any way, shape or form.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    > The other comment mentions the problem with this stance. But it is worthwhile to point out that this is pretty much par for the course for Microsoft, seeing as they are suddenly embracing open source with a vengeance despite being the single biggest factor in its suppression for 15+ of the last 20 years. Not really? Open Source took off when the corporate world around Microsoft embraced it as a way to get more unbilled hours from employees and restructure how they do tech sharing with other companies to make it cheaper. Microsoft has sued individual vendors for patent litigation, which is obviously bullshit but not something special for linux vendors (every vendor enters into this system and until said system is changed, a risk for it exists). > I remember seeing someone commenting how they are impressed with the new Microsoft. To which I thought "Really? Did they actually have any other choice?" _I'm_ impressed with Nadela and the engineers at Microsoft. I'm impressed that a corporate structure could shift this much. I used to work there in the bad old days and it was an incredibly demoralizing experience. Now, I look and talk to people who are happy and energized. I also think Microsoft didn't have to approach things the way they did. They absolutely had an option to try and perform a hostile takeover/co-opting of the Linux ecosystem (the way that Oracle is doing via its Java IP). Microsoft is what it is, for sure. It has a checkered past. But I think we should be encouraging when we see actors in the system do things like write non-enforcement pledges on patents, open source core technology with very permissive licenses so that their techniques and technology are dispersed throughout the ecosystem, and point out their product profile has never been stronger as a result. We can do this while also remaining cautious and defensive, as we should with every major corporate vendor.
- fennecfoxen 10y ago
  > Doing good things for bad reasons is better than doing bad things for bad reasons To use ancient metaphor, doing good things for bad reasons is like building a house on the sand: fine for a while. "And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it."
k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> new economic powerhouse to please over EU If your point point is, for example, China being more important to MS and demanding weaker privacy I don't think it matter that they are more powerful. I think MS would have to respect the laws of whichever nation has the highest privacy expectations. Or spread data out among countries it's created in and apply different privacy rules to different servers.
- tracker1 10y ago
  I think that last part is the direction we may be heading in.
cmiles74 10y ago
I don't believe corporations can really have ethics in any meaningful way. For sure there are people who work there, often with a good amount of control, who may be ethical. On the whole, however, they report to boards or committees. In my opinion, it's much easier for a group of people to talk themselves out of acting ethically. Having economic interests line up with corporate interests sounds as good as it gets, to me.
- Retric 10y ago
  Companies often act ethical when the rules support this. If you tax pollution or other externalities then company's take them into account. And people generally prefer working with ethical companies which is a bonus. However when you don't tax pollution companies that act unethically have a huge advantage and win driving more unethical behavior.
- elastic_church 10y ago
  Protip: there is no wisdom of the crowd
- endgame 10y ago
  I think the best you can do as a company is set up as a B Corp or something and try to build "do good" into the corp's reason for existing. This is a stronger step than "don't be evil".
ozi 10y ago
Yeah, by definition capitalism is amoral. Their obligated to increase shareholder value and that's it. If telling the US Intelligence apparatus to fuck off serves that purpose, then it's a course of action Microsoft must take. "Doing the right thing" is not what Microsoft cares about on a macro level. It just so happens that in this instance its actions align with the interests of most people.
- m_mueller 10y ago
  It's multiple levels of indirection here, but the interests of most people are supposed to be reflected in law and governance in a democracy. It's arguable that the interest of most EU citizens at least are reflected in Microsoft's actions here.
  - tunap 10y ago
    "interests of most people"(eg. shareholders) is not necessarily the same as"increase shareholder value", which is their legal mandate under corporate law. In this case, I have no doubt, and admittedly no proof, that this is posturing to salvage their perceived respect for privacy in the public eye despite their previous actions and the conflict to their prime directive. They already sell the data to 3rd parties, their beef is they did not get paid in this/these instances.
    - m_mueller 10y ago
      My point is that it's perfectly fine for corporations to just maximize shareholder value, as long as it's within a legal framework provided by democratically elected governments. That's precisely the purpose of governments, to guide society into a direction that's beneficial for the public as a whole, and they are elected based on their promises in this regard.

milesrout 10y ago

I think the other way to look at it is this: Doing good things for bad reasons is better than doing bad things for bad reasons, even if it's not as good as doing good things for good reasons.

boomboomsubban 10y ago
"Better" isn't enough, in the future the same bad reasons will have bad results.
thr0waway1239 10y ago
>> Doing good things for bad reasons is better than doing bad things for bad reasons The other comment mentions the problem with this stance. But it is worthwhile to point out that this is pretty much par for the course for Microsoft, seeing as they are suddenly embracing open source with a vengeance despite being the single biggest factor in its suppression for 15+ of the last 20 years. I remember seeing someone commenting how they are impressed with the new Microsoft. To which I thought "Really? Did they actually have any other choice?" To be sure, I will also add my view that I don't view any of the tech giants as having a moral high ground over MSFT in any way, shape or form.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  > The other comment mentions the problem with this stance. But it is worthwhile to point out that this is pretty much par for the course for Microsoft, seeing as they are suddenly embracing open source with a vengeance despite being the single biggest factor in its suppression for 15+ of the last 20 years. Not really? Open Source took off when the corporate world around Microsoft embraced it as a way to get more unbilled hours from employees and restructure how they do tech sharing with other companies to make it cheaper. Microsoft has sued individual vendors for patent litigation, which is obviously bullshit but not something special for linux vendors (every vendor enters into this system and until said system is changed, a risk for it exists). > I remember seeing someone commenting how they are impressed with the new Microsoft. To which I thought "Really? Did they actually have any other choice?" _I'm_ impressed with Nadela and the engineers at Microsoft. I'm impressed that a corporate structure could shift this much. I used to work there in the bad old days and it was an incredibly demoralizing experience. Now, I look and talk to people who are happy and energized. I also think Microsoft didn't have to approach things the way they did. They absolutely had an option to try and perform a hostile takeover/co-opting of the Linux ecosystem (the way that Oracle is doing via its Java IP). Microsoft is what it is, for sure. It has a checkered past. But I think we should be encouraging when we see actors in the system do things like write non-enforcement pledges on patents, open source core technology with very permissive licenses so that their techniques and technology are dispersed throughout the ecosystem, and point out their product profile has never been stronger as a result. We can do this while also remaining cautious and defensive, as we should with every major corporate vendor.
fennecfoxen 10y ago
> Doing good things for bad reasons is better than doing bad things for bad reasons To use ancient metaphor, doing good things for bad reasons is like building a house on the sand: fine for a while. "And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it."

k-mcgrady 10y ago

>> new economic powerhouse to please over EU If your point point is, for example, China being more important to MS and demanding weaker privacy I don't think it matter that they are more powerful. I think MS would have to respect the laws of whichever nation has the highest privacy expectations. Or spread data out among countries it's created in and apply different privacy rules to different servers.

tracker1 10y ago
I think that last part is the direction we may be heading in.

cmiles74 10y ago

I don't believe corporations can really have ethics in any meaningful way. For sure there are people who work there, often with a good amount of control, who may be ethical. On the whole, however, they report to boards or committees. In my opinion, it's much easier for a group of people to talk themselves out of acting ethically. Having economic interests line up with corporate interests sounds as good as it gets, to me.

Retric 10y ago
Companies often act ethical when the rules support this. If you tax pollution or other externalities then company's take them into account. And people generally prefer working with ethical companies which is a bonus. However when you don't tax pollution companies that act unethically have a huge advantage and win driving more unethical behavior.
elastic_church 10y ago
Protip: there is no wisdom of the crowd
endgame 10y ago
I think the best you can do as a company is set up as a B Corp or something and try to build "do good" into the corp's reason for existing. This is a stronger step than "don't be evil".

ozi 10y ago

Yeah, by definition capitalism is amoral. Their obligated to increase shareholder value and that's it. If telling the US Intelligence apparatus to fuck off serves that purpose, then it's a course of action Microsoft must take. "Doing the right thing" is not what Microsoft cares about on a macro level. It just so happens that in this instance its actions align with the interests of most people.

m_mueller 10y ago
It's multiple levels of indirection here, but the interests of most people are supposed to be reflected in law and governance in a democracy. It's arguable that the interest of most EU citizens at least are reflected in Microsoft's actions here.
- tunap 10y ago
  "interests of most people"(eg. shareholders) is not necessarily the same as"increase shareholder value", which is their legal mandate under corporate law. In this case, I have no doubt, and admittedly no proof, that this is posturing to salvage their perceived respect for privacy in the public eye despite their previous actions and the conflict to their prime directive. They already sell the data to 3rd parties, their beef is they did not get paid in this/these instances.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    My point is that it's perfectly fine for corporations to just maximize shareholder value, as long as it's within a legal framework provided by democratically elected governments. That's precisely the purpose of governments, to guide society into a direction that's beneficial for the public as a whole, and they are elected based on their promises in this regard.