3 ms·

Non-profits strive to place human outcomes over financial results. Many corporations are either unwilling or unable to do so, beyond what is required by law.

Non-profits strive to place human outcomes over financial results. Many corporations are either unwilling or unable to do so, beyond what is required by law. Market forces aren't well suited, on their own, to deal with these kind of externalities.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> Non profits strive to place human outcomes over financial results. Most corporations are either unwilling or unable to do so, beyond what is required by law. This is incredibly reductive. A non-profit can strive to place human outcomes over financial results, but nothing requires them to, and there are plenty of forces that push them in the other direction as well. Conversely, for-profit corporations might not strive to place human outcomes over financial results, but nothing prevents them from doing so[0], and some in fact do. The "non-profit" vs. "for-profit" distinction tells you literally nothing about a company's ethics. [0] Every time this topic comes up, someone brings up Dodge v. Ford, which (a) is not the most relevant precedent, even in Michigan law; (b) does not actually establish the precedent that people citing it usually thinks it does, even in Michigan law, (c) was soundly rejected in other states shortly after the Michigan decision, and (d) has since been overturned (in the part that is relevant here) in Michigan.
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  > The "non-profit" vs. "for-profit" distinction tells you literally nothing about a company's ethics. Have you researched this? It's quite a strong claim. On average, there are large differences between the two org types, in legal structure, vision, goals, funding, motivation, etc. It would be quite peculiar if all of these differences has zero net effect. It'd be like flipping a coin and having it land on the narrow edge.
wahern 10y ago
The same can be said of cryptography. Why believe that cryptography is more likely to be used for lawful and social beneficial purposes than for, e.g., terrorism, tax evasion, child abuse, etc. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the latter were in actuality the first adopters of cryptography, especially if you include other illegal uses such as copyright violation. We could easily say that free market dynamics suggest that the cost+benefit will higher for criminals, especially unless and until cryptography becomes ubiquitous. So why not nip it in the bud? That's been the argument coming from the law enforcement and intelligence communities all along. Yet engineers are defensive and optimistic about the beneficial usages of cryptography. They're dismissive of usages such as the encrypted iPhones used by the San Bernardino terrorists. And they focus on seemingly esoteric benefits--like improved security from extortionists--that most common people overlook or discount. I tend to _agree_ with those engineers, am similarly defensive and optimistic regarding cryptography, and place a high value on benefits not obvious to others. I think it's worthwhile to be consistent here. Any distinctions one can concoct to differentiate Facebook and their advertisers from, e.g., non-profits, can easily be turned around later. The emphasis shouldn't be on _presumed_ abuses, guilt by association, etc. It should be on hard data of actual usage and actual outcomes, with attention paid to implicit biases in collection and reporting. We also need to compare this against alternatives, taking into account (and quantifying) the futility of criminalization or regulation, etc.

chimeracoder 10y ago

> Non profits strive to place human outcomes over financial results. Most corporations are either unwilling or unable to do so, beyond what is required by law. This is incredibly reductive. A non-profit can strive to place human outcomes over financial results, but nothing requires them to, and there are plenty of forces that push them in the other direction as well. Conversely, for-profit corporations might not strive to place human outcomes over financial results, but nothing prevents them from doing so[0], and some in fact do. The "non-profit" vs. "for-profit" distinction tells you literally nothing about a company's ethics. [0] Every time this topic comes up, someone brings up Dodge v. Ford, which (a) is not the most relevant precedent, even in Michigan law; (b) does not actually establish the precedent that people citing it usually thinks it does, even in Michigan law, (c) was soundly rejected in other states shortly after the Michigan decision, and (d) has since been overturned (in the part that is relevant here) in Michigan.

dwaltrip 10y ago
> The "non-profit" vs. "for-profit" distinction tells you literally nothing about a company's ethics. Have you researched this? It's quite a strong claim. On average, there are large differences between the two org types, in legal structure, vision, goals, funding, motivation, etc. It would be quite peculiar if all of these differences has zero net effect. It'd be like flipping a coin and having it land on the narrow edge.

wahern 10y ago

The same can be said of cryptography. Why believe that cryptography is more likely to be used for lawful and social beneficial purposes than for, e.g., terrorism, tax evasion, child abuse, etc. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the latter were in actuality the first adopters of cryptography, especially if you include other illegal uses such as copyright violation. We could easily say that free market dynamics suggest that the cost+benefit will higher for criminals, especially unless and until cryptography becomes ubiquitous. So why not nip it in the bud? That's been the argument coming from the law enforcement and intelligence communities all along. Yet engineers are defensive and optimistic about the beneficial usages of cryptography. They're dismissive of usages such as the encrypted iPhones used by the San Bernardino terrorists. And they focus on seemingly esoteric benefits--like improved security from extortionists--that most common people overlook or discount. I tend to _agree_ with those engineers, am similarly defensive and optimistic regarding cryptography, and place a high value on benefits not obvious to others. I think it's worthwhile to be consistent here. Any distinctions one can concoct to differentiate Facebook and their advertisers from, e.g., non-profits, can easily be turned around later. The emphasis shouldn't be on _presumed_ abuses, guilt by association, etc. It should be on hard data of actual usage and actual outcomes, with attention paid to implicit biases in collection and reporting. We also need to compare this against alternatives, taking into account (and quantifying) the futility of criminalization or regulation, etc.