3 ms·

While I am sure that there is a lot of truth in that post, I'd say that selling "sins" is much more profitable: sex, drugs, alcohol, tobacco - lots of money inv

• gregwebs 18y ago
  These are your definitions of sin. Tobacco companies have been bad in the past for lying to their users. However, you could argue that many of these companies are being good to their users.
  • abless 18y ago
    Good point. However, if "being good to your users" is the meaning of "good" in the article, then using the word "good" (with all its connotations) might be misleading. "Good" basically reduces to "do what your users want".
    • jcl 18y ago
      "Good" basically reduces to "do what your users want". To be fair, PG makes the same connection in the essay, albeit in the opposite direction: "Make something people want. Don't worry too much about making money. What you've got is a description of a charity." And charity = good. Arguably, tobacco companies make something people really, really want, but they do not fit the definition of charity or good, probably because while people really want tobacco, it's not in their long-term interests. In other words, there's a gap between what people want and what they should want, and the tobacco companies exploit this gap. So PG's description fits more things than just charities -- and he really doesn't argue otherwise; he simply chooses not to consider it in the essay. There have been plenty of successful startups that similarly satisfy "Make something people want" but are of questionable benefit to their users' long-term interests: gambling, adult sites, online games, etc. Whether or not these endeavors constitute "evil" is, of course, a value judgment and depends on what you consider a long-term benefit. (The very idea that "good" and "evil" could be phrased in terms of short- and long-term benefits is interesting...)
• attack 18y ago
  Don't forget gambling, copyright infringement, harming for entertainment, tricking for gain.