6 ms·

I always find it interesting that it's never enough for any given person or group (be it corporation, Government agency, etc.) to be simply wrong, they also hav

I always find it interesting that it's never enough for any given person or group (be it corporation, Government agency, etc.) to be simply wrong, they also have to be evil in some capacity in order for people to get interested in retelling the story. IMHO, no, there was no sugar "conspiracy" merely the financial motives at play where companies wanted to continue producing foods they knew were unhealthy, addictive and extremely profitable. Wanting to be profitable doesn't make a company intrinsically evil, that's what companies are for. There is plenty to say about many industries where it's clear they didn't know certain things about their products because they didn't want to know those things, but retroactively trying to hold them responsible is ridiculous. Instead, focus on companies pulling that exact same stunt right now when it's useful.

IntronExon 9y ago
I don’t know if it’s a need, or just an awareness of history which leads people to search for malice when misinformation and tons of money converge.
- wickawic 9y ago
  I would guess that in 50 years people will look at current tech trends in the same way. “They had to have known the apps and content were being created to induce maximal stress and addictive behavior!”
TPPOW0020 9y ago
>Wanting to be profitable doesn't make a company intrinsically evil, that's what companies are for. But they increased profits by intentionally misleading people and getting them hooked on unhealthy food. They helped themselves by hurting others. In plain English, we'd call that evil. Let's admit that legal, profit seeking behavior, can sometimes be evil. Furthermore, there's nothing ridiculous with going after bad actors in the past. I agree the main focus should be on companies doing harm in the present. But holding past actions to account sends the message that you can't get away with harming customers forever. It's a deterrent.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  > Let's admit that legal, profit seeking behavior, can sometimes be evil. Obviously. That's why we have Government regulations and various protection agencies, and why I get headaches when free market types whine about having to meet them and how we're "constraining" businesses by making them do things like not store toxic product in break rooms, allow workers enough rest to function whilst operating 20 ton machinery, etc. > Furthermore, there's nothing ridiculous with going after bad actors in the past. I agree the main focus should be on companies doing harm in the present. But holding past actions to account sends the message that you can't get away with harming customers forever. It's a deterrent. In it's current state, I'd argue those deterrents barely qualify as such. Fines, especially in the tech sector are a bad joke. They're so low that the companies could just add them as a budget line item and still be massively profitable.
- dylan604 9y ago
  >Let's admit that legal, profit seeking behavior, can sometimes be evil. So, how does the HN crowd apply this statement to tech companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, AT&T, Comcast, etc?
  - noxToken 9y ago
    I personally think that some of the actions that they take are evil. A few examples: Facebook - the emotional manipulation experiment that they ran with non-consenting users was evil. Technically speaking, users agreed to it via the fine print regarding internal testing, and to me, that makes it even more evil. Internal testing typically means A/B testing, and it is not unreasonable to think that internal testing does not include intentional emotional manipulation. TelCos - their (United States) relentless push, subterfuge and lobbying to continue to rule the laid lines with an iron fist in spite of the government subsidies to help provide fast connectivity to most Americans. Not only did the telcos not upgrade the lines like they were supposed to, but US customers still pay taxes and fees that should go towards these upgrades that most users don't see. Some quick searching shows that the average download speed last year was below 25 Mb/s. I admit that this is actually an adequate speed for every day use in a cable household that only does light browsing. However the plan was to deliver much faster symmetric speeds. The net neutrality decision is just insult to injury (though that's an FCC decision).
dwaltrip 9y ago
> Wanting to be profitable doesn't make a company intrinsically evil, that's what companies are for. I think it's evil to want profits at the explicit, direct cost millions of people suffering and dying (not to mention the societal drag of hundreds of billions in healthcare costs). I personally don't believe that companies should be viewed as entirely amoral agents. I do understand that the vast majority of the time, profit incentives outweigh any moral considerations. But not 100% of the time. Of course, public policy / laws / regulations are powerful tools that should be used as wisely as possible to help some of these issues. But I don't think we should view law as the only barrier that prevents companies from doing evil things -- the law will always be incomplete and limited in power. Human social factors, culture, and morality play a big role, I think, even in broadly affecting company behavior. Still working out my thoughts on this.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  > I think it's evil to want profits at the explicit, direct cost millions of people suffering and dying (not to mention the societal drag of hundreds of billions in healthcare costs). Of course it is, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing it's illogical to expect an entity that is inherently amoral to act morally. One could make a solid argument that the corporation as a concept is in fact designed to abstract away decisions that carry heavy moral weight into smaller decisions made by people who, while moral themselves, do not connect their morality to their every day decisions about maximizing profits for the good of themselves and their coworkers. > I personally don't believe that companies should be viewed as entirely amoral agents. I do understand that the vast majority of the time, profit incentives outweigh any moral considerations. But not 100% of the time. Companies are not inherently immoral, no, not the way I believe corporations are. It's an issue of scale. Once you have sufficient distance between the leadership and the boots-on-the-ground workforce, it's much easier for them to make decisions that directly endanger said workforce without feeling as though they're doing anything wrong, with the added benefit of that same power structure abstracting their actions away to such a degree where they aren't held personally accountable when things go wrong and people die. Were any of the executives of the Exxon company ever made to personally deal with their oil spills? I doubt it. If they were made to go out there in the freezing cold and clean penguins instead of paying some amount of money that was basically a heavy albeit necessary expense for them, I think you'd find them remembering that experience a lot better. > Of course, public policy / laws / regulations are powerful tools that should be used as wisely as possible to help some of these issues. But I don't think we should view law as the only barrier that prevents companies from doing evil things -- the law will always be incomplete and limited in power. Human social factors, culture, and morality play a big role, I think, even in broadly affecting company behavior. Still working out my thoughts on this. Again you're using the word "evil" which I believe is inherently a misnomer. Far more accurate I think is "stupid." If you have for example a small business owner who works in his shop every day and mandates that his workers wear eye protection, he doesn't so much need OSHA because he's also in that shop, and so enforces safety code for his safety, and that he has a direct and personal relationship with his fellow workers, and so wants to ensure their safety as well. In a corporation, you'll find you end up with a particular shop manager who doesn't value safety very much and encourages his workers to "bend the rules" on safety because it allows them to work faster. His higher ups don't necessarily see that, they just see this particular shop has now increased output by 8%, and so they ask their other shops "why are you not increasing output as well?" and those managers in turn feel that pressure and may lax their own standards as well. "Evil" assigns ill will intent to actions which are not inherently about ill will, and make the people who make them into monsters or some kind of other-human type thing that is harder for people to identify. Making these people out to just be regular people making rational, but flawed, decisions is something people don't like to do because then they have to confront the reality that they are absolutely capable of performing actions that result in people losing eyes, oil tankers wrecking in Alaska, cruise ships capsizing, etc. and people don't like that.

IntronExon 9y ago

I don’t know if it’s a need, or just an awareness of history which leads people to search for malice when misinformation and tons of money converge.

wickawic 9y ago
I would guess that in 50 years people will look at current tech trends in the same way. “They had to have known the apps and content were being created to induce maximal stress and addictive behavior!”

TPPOW0020 9y ago

>Wanting to be profitable doesn't make a company intrinsically evil, that's what companies are for. But they increased profits by intentionally misleading people and getting them hooked on unhealthy food. They helped themselves by hurting others. In plain English, we'd call that evil. Let's admit that legal, profit seeking behavior, can sometimes be evil. Furthermore, there's nothing ridiculous with going after bad actors in the past. I agree the main focus should be on companies doing harm in the present. But holding past actions to account sends the message that you can't get away with harming customers forever. It's a deterrent.

FussyZeus 9y ago
> Let's admit that legal, profit seeking behavior, can sometimes be evil. Obviously. That's why we have Government regulations and various protection agencies, and why I get headaches when free market types whine about having to meet them and how we're "constraining" businesses by making them do things like not store toxic product in break rooms, allow workers enough rest to function whilst operating 20 ton machinery, etc. > Furthermore, there's nothing ridiculous with going after bad actors in the past. I agree the main focus should be on companies doing harm in the present. But holding past actions to account sends the message that you can't get away with harming customers forever. It's a deterrent. In it's current state, I'd argue those deterrents barely qualify as such. Fines, especially in the tech sector are a bad joke. They're so low that the companies could just add them as a budget line item and still be massively profitable.
dylan604 9y ago
>Let's admit that legal, profit seeking behavior, can sometimes be evil. So, how does the HN crowd apply this statement to tech companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, AT&T, Comcast, etc?
- noxToken 9y ago
  I personally think that some of the actions that they take are evil. A few examples: Facebook - the emotional manipulation experiment that they ran with non-consenting users was evil. Technically speaking, users agreed to it via the fine print regarding internal testing, and to me, that makes it even more evil. Internal testing typically means A/B testing, and it is not unreasonable to think that internal testing does not include intentional emotional manipulation. TelCos - their (United States) relentless push, subterfuge and lobbying to continue to rule the laid lines with an iron fist in spite of the government subsidies to help provide fast connectivity to most Americans. Not only did the telcos not upgrade the lines like they were supposed to, but US customers still pay taxes and fees that should go towards these upgrades that most users don't see. Some quick searching shows that the average download speed last year was below 25 Mb/s. I admit that this is actually an adequate speed for every day use in a cable household that only does light browsing. However the plan was to deliver much faster symmetric speeds. The net neutrality decision is just insult to injury (though that's an FCC decision).

dwaltrip 9y ago

> Wanting to be profitable doesn't make a company intrinsically evil, that's what companies are for. I think it's evil to want profits at the explicit, direct cost millions of people suffering and dying (not to mention the societal drag of hundreds of billions in healthcare costs). I personally don't believe that companies should be viewed as entirely amoral agents. I do understand that the vast majority of the time, profit incentives outweigh any moral considerations. But not 100% of the time. Of course, public policy / laws / regulations are powerful tools that should be used as wisely as possible to help some of these issues. But I don't think we should view law as the only barrier that prevents companies from doing evil things -- the law will always be incomplete and limited in power. Human social factors, culture, and morality play a big role, I think, even in broadly affecting company behavior. Still working out my thoughts on this.

FussyZeus 9y ago
> I think it's evil to want profits at the explicit, direct cost millions of people suffering and dying (not to mention the societal drag of hundreds of billions in healthcare costs). Of course it is, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing it's illogical to expect an entity that is inherently amoral to act morally. One could make a solid argument that the corporation as a concept is in fact designed to abstract away decisions that carry heavy moral weight into smaller decisions made by people who, while moral themselves, do not connect their morality to their every day decisions about maximizing profits for the good of themselves and their coworkers. > I personally don't believe that companies should be viewed as entirely amoral agents. I do understand that the vast majority of the time, profit incentives outweigh any moral considerations. But not 100% of the time. Companies are not inherently immoral, no, not the way I believe corporations are. It's an issue of scale. Once you have sufficient distance between the leadership and the boots-on-the-ground workforce, it's much easier for them to make decisions that directly endanger said workforce without feeling as though they're doing anything wrong, with the added benefit of that same power structure abstracting their actions away to such a degree where they aren't held personally accountable when things go wrong and people die. Were any of the executives of the Exxon company ever made to personally deal with their oil spills? I doubt it. If they were made to go out there in the freezing cold and clean penguins instead of paying some amount of money that was basically a heavy albeit necessary expense for them, I think you'd find them remembering that experience a lot better. > Of course, public policy / laws / regulations are powerful tools that should be used as wisely as possible to help some of these issues. But I don't think we should view law as the only barrier that prevents companies from doing evil things -- the law will always be incomplete and limited in power. Human social factors, culture, and morality play a big role, I think, even in broadly affecting company behavior. Still working out my thoughts on this. Again you're using the word "evil" which I believe is inherently a misnomer. Far more accurate I think is "stupid." If you have for example a small business owner who works in his shop every day and mandates that his workers wear eye protection, he doesn't so much need OSHA because he's also in that shop, and so enforces safety code for his safety, and that he has a direct and personal relationship with his fellow workers, and so wants to ensure their safety as well. In a corporation, you'll find you end up with a particular shop manager who doesn't value safety very much and encourages his workers to "bend the rules" on safety because it allows them to work faster. His higher ups don't necessarily see that, they just see this particular shop has now increased output by 8%, and so they ask their other shops "why are you not increasing output as well?" and those managers in turn feel that pressure and may lax their own standards as well. "Evil" assigns ill will intent to actions which are not inherently about ill will, and make the people who make them into monsters or some kind of other-human type thing that is harder for people to identify. Making these people out to just be regular people making rational, but flawed, decisions is something people don't like to do because then they have to confront the reality that they are absolutely capable of performing actions that result in people losing eyes, oil tankers wrecking in Alaska, cruise ships capsizing, etc. and people don't like that.