4 ms·

"companies will always have to put their financial gains first" Though there is a ton of evidence for this, I've always disliked this type of statement. A comp

"companies will always have to put their financial gains first" Though there is a ton of evidence for this, I've always disliked this type of statement. A company does not have a mind of it's own, and therefore has no concept of self-interest. It is the people at the company who are making the decisions. It's why there is a backlash when companies don't behave the way their customers expect them to. In the end, it all does come down to people and the cultural influence. For the past 50 years, we've culturally been dragged into a big business, security, get rich mindset which has driven aspirations at the cost of our freedoms, environment, and general social good. I personally don't believe the Zuckerberg is 'evil'. Though the news feed has issues, his overarching goal is admirable. I believe that Facebook now understands the political difficulties the news feed creates, but if Facebook were truly a dictatorship, they wouldn't be spreading multiple oposing propaganda, would they? Zuck would have picked the candidate he liked, and promoted that person. Facebook didn't do that, they let the people decide what they wanted to see.

wayn3 9y ago
if you lead a company, and dont do whats in the best interest of your shareholders, youre getting sued and then you go to prison. unless you get the law changed, companies absolutely have to put their financial gains first.
- kaffee 9y ago
  Isn't the bar for criminal liability fairly high? Doesn't a CEO usually get fired and/or fined? I'd be interested in learning about an case where a CEO goes to prison because he didn't pursue shareholders' interests aggressively enough.
  - odonnellryan 9y ago
    Never has happened. You can be socially responsible even if it means "making less than absolutely possible." It's idiotic to think that any C-level has to always be doing what will absolutely maximize profits. It's impossible for them to be doing that constantly, all the time.
- kwhitefoot 9y ago
  This is a misreading of the law. And plainly not the way that a lot of large companies behave. See http://www.corporatepolicy.org/2012/03/25/are-corporations-required-to-maximize-profits/ http://www.corporatepolicy.org/2012/03/25/are-corporations-r... for instance.
- namlem 9y ago
  You absolutely will not go to prison. You probably wouldn't even get sued. You'd just be fired.
zo1 9y ago
>"I believe that Facebook now understands the political difficulties the news feed creates, but if Facebook were truly a dictatorship, they wouldn't be spreading multiple oposing propaganda, would they?" Of course they would. They claim to be simply a "platform" for "diverse" opinions. Yet, at the first sign of someone being offended against something that's not popular, they shut it down. Even if they do it to the left and the right, what they're then essentially doing is forcing everyone into this average middle area where no one can say anything wildly-diverging from the mainstream narrative. But, from my point of view, the "mainstream" is currently rampantly left-leaning. So any "in your face" right-leaning points of view are very easily deemed to be in contradiction of some sort of "community standards", and are promptly shut down. I follow pages that have to regularly make numbered "back-up copy" Facebook groups/pages so that they can contact their followers after Facebook shuts them down, which is inevitable. It really is all or nothing when it comes to free-speech. People self-censor and avoid the things that naturally make them uncomfortable. But if you shift the responsibility for that to some centralized entity, you're going to have problems that alienates many.

wayn3 9y ago

if you lead a company, and dont do whats in the best interest of your shareholders, youre getting sued and then you go to prison. unless you get the law changed, companies absolutely have to put their financial gains first.

kaffee 9y ago
Isn't the bar for criminal liability fairly high? Doesn't a CEO usually get fired and/or fined? I'd be interested in learning about an case where a CEO goes to prison because he didn't pursue shareholders' interests aggressively enough.
- odonnellryan 9y ago
  Never has happened. You can be socially responsible even if it means "making less than absolutely possible." It's idiotic to think that any C-level has to always be doing what will absolutely maximize profits. It's impossible for them to be doing that constantly, all the time.
kwhitefoot 9y ago
This is a misreading of the law. And plainly not the way that a lot of large companies behave. See http://www.corporatepolicy.org/2012/03/25/are-corporations-required-to-maximize-profits/ http://www.corporatepolicy.org/2012/03/25/are-corporations-r... for instance.
namlem 9y ago
You absolutely will not go to prison. You probably wouldn't even get sued. You'd just be fired.

zo1 9y ago

>"I believe that Facebook now understands the political difficulties the news feed creates, but if Facebook were truly a dictatorship, they wouldn't be spreading multiple oposing propaganda, would they?" Of course they would. They claim to be simply a "platform" for "diverse" opinions. Yet, at the first sign of someone being offended against something that's not popular, they shut it down. Even if they do it to the left and the right, what they're then essentially doing is forcing everyone into this average middle area where no one can say anything wildly-diverging from the mainstream narrative. But, from my point of view, the "mainstream" is currently rampantly left-leaning. So any "in your face" right-leaning points of view are very easily deemed to be in contradiction of some sort of "community standards", and are promptly shut down. I follow pages that have to regularly make numbered "back-up copy" Facebook groups/pages so that they can contact their followers after Facebook shuts them down, which is inevitable. It really is all or nothing when it comes to free-speech. People self-censor and avoid the things that naturally make them uncomfortable. But if you shift the responsibility for that to some centralized entity, you're going to have problems that alienates many.