> it's not a conspiracy But is it a conflict of interest? Nestle formula wasn't let's kill babies in Africa. It was let's do PR damage control first, and if

> it's not a conspiracy But is it a conflict of interest? Nestle formula wasn't let's kill babies in Africa. It was let's do PR damage control first, and if the PR cost gets too high, we'll eventually change our marketing strategy. Unilever wasn't let's increase racism in India. It was skin lightening products are the largest personal care market segment, so let's advertise and develop the market. Microsoft wasn't let's reduce the world's access to knowledge in books. It was what's bad for Google is good for us, so let's quietly fund stumbling blocks. Why should I inconvenience my customers by fixing my implementations of your standards? Why should I delay giving features to my customers because of your standardization slowness? What part of your customers switching to be my customers should I prioritize as a problem? Situations have associated incentives. Ethics can shape response. But incentives do matter. No conspiracy needed.