4 ms·

Exactly. Facebook's primary objective is to return as much value (money) to investors as possible. The way they treat the users of the system, their employees,

Exactly. Facebook's primary objective is to return as much value (money) to investors as possible. The way they treat the users of the system, their employees, local governments, etc. is all a reflection of that.

close04 8y ago
That's the fiduciary duty of every CEO: Duties of care, loyalty and disclosure. The loyalty is the most important one because it involves having the best interest of the shareholders in mind. This very simplified means "increase value". If this is done taking into account all available information, no info is ignored, no info is hidden, then there is nothing more to say. The CEO has done their job. There is no mandate for a business to be ethical, moral unless this is considered to be in the best interest of the shareholders. Is FB value going up or down if FB decides to be moral and ethical towards the users? That answers the question "why are only some companies moral". Apple for example decided to take the high road and be the champion of user privacy because they failed to compete with FB, Google, and the likes in the battle for users' data. So adopting a "moral/ethical" position opposing others was the way to bring value to the company. Companies are not people. Decisions are driven by profit whether in the short or long term.
- adamc 8y ago
  One might reasonably think there should be mandates to be ethical, moral, etc. Society at large does not benefit from allowing companies to act as amoral predators. Which is what you describe above.
  - nradov 8y ago
    And we do codify some of those ethical and moral mandates in the form of laws and government regulations. Ultimately the only way to ensure that companies consistently behave well is to elect politicians who will force them to do so.
    - tareqak 8y ago
      Why not add them to a company's charter? I guess it would scare away potential investors, but maybe other investors would be attracted by them.
  - dgzl 8y ago
    I'm in the camp that doesn't believe a free society should be mandating individual morals. Edit: leaving ethics out of this.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      All laws are inherently mandates of ethics/morals. Edit: to address the parent edit to remove “ethics” and distinguish “morals” for different treatment, the division of subjective preferences into “ethics” and “morals" (and “aesthetics”, for that matter) is fairly arbitrary and subjective in any case.
      - quotemstr 8y ago
        Good laws are conservative codifications of consensus morality. A just legal code forbids only what the vast majority would consider wrong regardless of the law. When the law forbids what people don't consider wrong, it becomes tyranny.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > A just legal code forbids only what the vast majority would consider wrong regardless of the law. I don't think that's entirely true; legal codes often specify things on which there is a strong preference for uniformity (or benefits which can only be gained by uniformity) but where the details of the uniform rules are not themselves a near-universal consensus independent of the law. I don't think this makes them bad legal codes. (Prohibiting driving on the left-hand side of a public roadway in the direction of travel, for instance.)

close04 8y ago

That's the fiduciary duty of every CEO: Duties of care, loyalty and disclosure. The loyalty is the most important one because it involves having the best interest of the shareholders in mind. This very simplified means "increase value". If this is done taking into account all available information, no info is ignored, no info is hidden, then there is nothing more to say. The CEO has done their job. There is no mandate for a business to be ethical, moral unless this is considered to be in the best interest of the shareholders. Is FB value going up or down if FB decides to be moral and ethical towards the users? That answers the question "why are only some companies moral". Apple for example decided to take the high road and be the champion of user privacy because they failed to compete with FB, Google, and the likes in the battle for users' data. So adopting a "moral/ethical" position opposing others was the way to bring value to the company. Companies are not people. Decisions are driven by profit whether in the short or long term.

adamc 8y ago
One might reasonably think there should be mandates to be ethical, moral, etc. Society at large does not benefit from allowing companies to act as amoral predators. Which is what you describe above.
- nradov 8y ago
  And we do codify some of those ethical and moral mandates in the form of laws and government regulations. Ultimately the only way to ensure that companies consistently behave well is to elect politicians who will force them to do so.
  - tareqak 8y ago
    Why not add them to a company's charter? I guess it would scare away potential investors, but maybe other investors would be attracted by them.
- dgzl 8y ago
  I'm in the camp that doesn't believe a free society should be mandating individual morals. Edit: leaving ethics out of this.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    All laws are inherently mandates of ethics/morals. Edit: to address the parent edit to remove “ethics” and distinguish “morals” for different treatment, the division of subjective preferences into “ethics” and “morals" (and “aesthetics”, for that matter) is fairly arbitrary and subjective in any case.
    - quotemstr 8y ago
      Good laws are conservative codifications of consensus morality. A just legal code forbids only what the vast majority would consider wrong regardless of the law. When the law forbids what people don't consider wrong, it becomes tyranny.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > A just legal code forbids only what the vast majority would consider wrong regardless of the law. I don't think that's entirely true; legal codes often specify things on which there is a strong preference for uniformity (or benefits which can only be gained by uniformity) but where the details of the uniform rules are not themselves a near-universal consensus independent of the law. I don't think this makes them bad legal codes. (Prohibiting driving on the left-hand side of a public roadway in the direction of travel, for instance.)