I tend to agree about "feature good, feature bad". But corporations ("are people" and) it definitely makes sense to say they are "good" or "bad", just as you c

I tend to agree about "feature good, feature bad". But corporations ("are people" and) it definitely makes sense to say they are "good" or "bad", just as you can say that about people. Microsoft, for decades, bullied everyone around and kept pissing into the collective village well, e.g. with their stacking of ISO committees towards standardizing OOXML, which later slowed down ISO processes to a stop because of the many never-present-never-voting-except-that-one-vote members (and those processes are not quick to begin with). I have over 20 years of bullying stories between 1990-2010 or so, some of which I was personally involved and affected by. They have been beat into submission in the last few years, and are now behaving in line with a "good corporate citizen" behaviour. If they continue that for twenty years, I might consider them reformed. Holywood/MPAA are a "bad corporation" for their work on the public domain. Oracle are a "bad corporation" for anyone who likes open systems. Google is a "bad corporation" for anyone who likes privacy. Facebook is a "bad corporation" for almost any group. I'm sure Apple is too, but I haven't met anyone who has been affected by Apple's policies except of being a direct competitor, so I'm not sure how that group looks. All of these companies do deliver useful services, of course. But they do that for profit (which is what a corporate does). And while doing that, to grow, they inflict great harm on the ecosystem at large, much larger than the benefit and profit they derive from causing that harm. I guess that's one definition of a "bad actor" in my book.