4 ms·

But can't it be argued that even social responsibility programs by companies are profit driven? Does it hurt or enhance Apple's image that they care about the d

But can't it be argued that even social responsibility programs by companies are profit driven? Does it hurt or enhance Apple's image that they care about the disable, the environment or security against state actors? In the short term, likely not, but I weigh all of those things carefully when thinking about which phone I'm going to buy.

HeyLaughingBoy 9y ago
Of course it can be argued, but that doesn't make it correct.
matt4077 9y ago
Yes, indeed–but that's actually part of the argument against: it allows to define basically anything "profit-driven" and makes the idea meaningless. The unfortunate part is where this supposed doctrine is used repeatedly to excuse companies' worst behaviours: "Amazon cannot install air conditioning in warehouses that have people fainting in the summer, because that would clearly cost money and Bezos would be criminally liable for leaving money on the table".
wutbrodo 9y ago
That's what I mean. It absolutely can be argued, but an unfalsifiable[1] claim is worse than useless. My complaint here is not against those who claim that seemingly-altruistic moves are sometimes profit-driven, but rather those who are convinced that _every_ action taken by a corporation is solely and only profit-driven. People who believe this (or talk like they do) are far, far more common than you'd think. As I said, as far as I can tell, it's likely due to the fact that trying to intuit the culture of a company through its actions over time is very difficult and it's far easier for lazy or small minds to decide that there are no actions beyond profit-seeking ever taken. [1] For those who don't know precisely what I mean by this, it essentially means that there's literally no possible action the accused could take to prove otherwise.

4 ms·

But can't it be argued that even social responsibility programs by companies are profit driven? Does it hurt or enhance Apple's image that they care about the d

by merpnderp 9y ago

HeyLaughingBoy 9y ago
Of course it can be argued, but that doesn't make it correct.
matt4077 9y ago
Yes, indeed–but that's actually part of the argument against: it allows to define basically anything "profit-driven" and makes the idea meaningless. The unfortunate part is where this supposed doctrine is used repeatedly to excuse companies' worst behaviours: "Amazon cannot install air conditioning in warehouses that have people fainting in the summer, because that would clearly cost money and Bezos would be criminally liable for leaving money on the table".
wutbrodo 9y ago
That's what I mean. It absolutely can be argued, but an unfalsifiable[1] claim is worse than useless. My complaint here is not against those who claim that seemingly-altruistic moves are sometimes profit-driven, but rather those who are convinced that _every_ action taken by a corporation is solely and only profit-driven. People who believe this (or talk like they do) are far, far more common than you'd think. As I said, as far as I can tell, it's likely due to the fact that trying to intuit the culture of a company through its actions over time is very difficult and it's far easier for lazy or small minds to decide that there are no actions beyond profit-seeking ever taken. [1] For those who don't know precisely what I mean by this, it essentially means that there's literally no possible action the accused could take to prove otherwise.