6 ms·

There is such a thing as business ethics. Facebook's complete disregard for them should not be the norm, even if it, sadly, might be more often than not.

by cowpig 8y ago

LeoNatan25 8y ago
It has been the norm in Silicone Valley for many years, unfortunately. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be appalled by it anyway, but perhaps just more cynical.
- bsder 8y ago
  Where can I get tickets to Silicone Valley? (Presumably Las Vegas, Los Angeles, or Houston ... possibly Atlanta) I suspect it is very different from Silicon Valley.
394549 8y ago
>> What year would it be ok to be naive enough to think that any for profit company’s main motivation is not to make as much money possible? > There is such a thing as business ethics. > Facebook's complete disregard for them should not be the norm, even if it, sadly, might be more often than not. It's alarming how businesses' lack of business ethics is getting normalized by comments like the grandparent's. We should require that companies be ethical and condemn them when they aren't. Yes, we'll often be disappointed, just like we're disappointed with the fraction of humanity that becomes criminal, but that doesn't mean we should lower our standards.
- icebraining 8y ago
  The "normalization" slur is too often thrown at those who just have their eyes wide open. Yes, we should require them. The WhatsApp founder didn't attempt that, he just hoped they wouldn't.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Yes and the only way you can “require” anything when doing business is through a written contract with clauses that specify what happens when the contract is breached and the jurisdiction where the breaches will be adjudicated.
    - 394549 8y ago
      > Yes and the only way you can “require” anything when doing business is through a written contract with clauses that specify what happens when the contract is breached and the jurisdiction where the breaches will be adjudicated. I expect/require that people not steal from me even though I don't have a contract or prior agreement with them, and I also predict that some people won't respect my property.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        I don't have a contract or prior agreement You mean, except for criminal law? I don't see how this is in any way equivalent to adding ads to Whatsapp.
        394549 8y ago
        > You mean, except for criminal law? I don't see how this is in any way equivalent to adding ads to Whatsapp. It's not against the law to lie to me in most cases, but I still have the same expectation/requirement that people will be honest with me that I do that they won't steal.
        scarface74 8y ago
        Even when doing multi billion dollar deals you would trust a handshake agreement? I wouldn't trust a handshake agreement on a used car.
      - tengbretson 8y ago
        Most people would argue that you already do have a contract with people that requires they do not steal from you.
- scarface74 8y ago
  How do we as individuals “require” companies to be ethical? At the end of the day, we don’t have the power to enforce ethics. We have to work within the framework of reality and get everything in writing.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - nemo44x 8y ago
    Boycott them and don't purchase or use their products. If you feel strongly about it go further and organize more people to do the same. Try to convince people who don't feel the company is unethical that it is. But in the end you can't expect because you don't like a company that your feelings on what should happen to come to be. It's like so many people complaining on Twitter about Twitter not banning voices they don't like. If you don't like Twitter's policies then stop using their product. If enough people agree with you and do this they will change. If you feel it's worth spending your life organizing people to boycott Twitter then spend your life doing that. But the culture of demanding that platforms must adhere to someones arbitrary expectations as if using their platform is a right is ridiculous.
    - jschwartzi 8y ago
      This is exactly what I do with Uber. I don't use it. I use Lyft. This is because I don't consider Uber an ethical company, nor do I particularly like their HR and other management practices. I don't know very much about Lyft but I have yet to hear anything bad about them which is pretty encouraging.
      - lazerwalker 8y ago
        Peter Thiel is a major investor and board seat holder in Lyft. If your politics lead you to believe Uber is not an ethical company, that might also give you pause.
        8y ago
- scns 8y ago
  Maybe we should stop ascribing these decisions to faceless corporations, they are made by humans.
notyourday 8y ago
> There is such a thing as business ethics. TL;DR version of which is "Make as much money as possible or become irrelevant note in history" Edit: Oh, please. Downvotes keep demonstrating a total disconnect between HN responses that require pushing a downvote button and say mass resignation from Google or Facebook or Whatsapp or Well Fargo or Equifax that might trigger a response. So yes, the only business ethics that is relevant in the real world is "Make as much money as possible".
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  No, the downvotes are for giving them a pass because they're trying to make money.
  - notyourday 8y ago
    I may not like that if I go out in a rain I will get wet, but not acknowledging that as the fact won't keep me dry should I go out in a rain. They sold the company. By selling the company they have become employees, not founders with control. If they did not like it, they should not have sold. If they are remorseful, they can donate 100% of all the money that they made from a sale of the company as well as all the interest that they have accumulated to some me-so-sorry non-profit. Not 10%. Not 50%. 100%. Otherwise those are just empty words, just like protests of HN crowd working for Google, Facebook, Equifax, etc.: empty words that make them feel better.
- jschwartzi 8y ago
  There's a huge middle ground between being completely irrelevant that you're missing. Plenty of small and medium businesses abide by ethics and make ethical decisions every day. You just don't hear about them because it's not newsworthy that their management tries to do right by the employees or that they pay their bills on time. They're not noteworthy because they're the norm, not the exception.
  - notyourday 8y ago
    Exactly. And those small and medium sized businesses are in the dust bin of history. These are the same businesses that everyone at HN laughs at as they only pay $40k/year for senior software engineers.
jamiequint 8y ago
Monetizing via ads is hardly disregarding business ethics, it's just a different way of monetizing.
scarface74 8y ago
Ascribing ethics or lack of ethics to a business is like ascribing the same traits to a non sentient being. Even if your manager is ethical and “cares” about the well being of his employees, his manager may not. Even if his manager does the board, the investors/shareholders, etc. probably don’t. The whole purpose of a corporation is that a corporation survives without regards of any one person getting hit by a bus. I worked for a struggling company a few years ago and management was very honest about the dire straights we were in, I was part of the team who sat in on interviews and did presentations for potential acquirers so I knew what was going on. I trusted management not to purposefully screw me over. But at the end of the day, if they “guaranteed me” that my check would clear for every hour I worked I wouldn’t have believed them. The only reason I stayed until the bitter end was because our VC backers promised us in writing that we would be payed until we got an official layoff notice.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Ascribing ethics or lack of ethics to a business is like ascribing the same traits to a non sentient being This is defeatist. Corporations can be sued in courts, just like people. Their obligations are binding, just like peoples'. There is a little more complexity to signing a deal with a corporation than a natural person because there are multiple sapient interests involved, but that's what lawyers are for. Protecting users' privacy was never prioritized in the acquisition process. If it had been, the anti-monetization clause would have been stronger. That's okay. We're talking about billions of dollars. But turning around and playing the good guy will take these men more than simply claiming ignorance.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    This is defeatist. Corporations can be sued in courts, just like people. Their obligations are binding, just like peoples'. There is a little more complexity to signing a deal with a corporation than a natural person because there are multiple sapient interests involved, but that's what lawyers are for. I never said that companies go around breaking legally binding contracts or there is no recourse if they do. I said you shouldn’t trust a handshake deal when doing any business that amounts to real money. Get it in writing.

There is such a thing as business ethics. Facebook's complete disregard for them should not be the norm, even if it, sadly, might be more often than not.

by cowpig 8y ago

There is such a thing as business ethics. Facebook's complete disregard for them should not be the norm, even if it, sadly, might be more often than not.

LeoNatan25 8y ago

It has been the norm in Silicone Valley for many years, unfortunately. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be appalled by it anyway, but perhaps just more cynical.

bsder 8y ago
Where can I get tickets to Silicone Valley? (Presumably Las Vegas, Los Angeles, or Houston ... possibly Atlanta) I suspect it is very different from Silicon Valley.

394549 8y ago

>> What year would it be ok to be naive enough to think that any for profit company’s main motivation is not to make as much money possible? > There is such a thing as business ethics. > Facebook's complete disregard for them should not be the norm, even if it, sadly, might be more often than not. It's alarming how businesses' lack of business ethics is getting normalized by comments like the grandparent's. We should require that companies be ethical and condemn them when they aren't. Yes, we'll often be disappointed, just like we're disappointed with the fraction of humanity that becomes criminal, but that doesn't mean we should lower our standards.

icebraining 8y ago
The "normalization" slur is too often thrown at those who just have their eyes wide open. Yes, we should require them. The WhatsApp founder didn't attempt that, he just hoped they wouldn't.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Yes and the only way you can “require” anything when doing business is through a written contract with clauses that specify what happens when the contract is breached and the jurisdiction where the breaches will be adjudicated.
  - 394549 8y ago
    > Yes and the only way you can “require” anything when doing business is through a written contract with clauses that specify what happens when the contract is breached and the jurisdiction where the breaches will be adjudicated. I expect/require that people not steal from me even though I don't have a contract or prior agreement with them, and I also predict that some people won't respect my property.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      I don't have a contract or prior agreement You mean, except for criminal law? I don't see how this is in any way equivalent to adding ads to Whatsapp.
      - 394549 8y ago
        > You mean, except for criminal law? I don't see how this is in any way equivalent to adding ads to Whatsapp. It's not against the law to lie to me in most cases, but I still have the same expectation/requirement that people will be honest with me that I do that they won't steal.
        scarface74 8y ago
        Even when doing multi billion dollar deals you would trust a handshake agreement? I wouldn't trust a handshake agreement on a used car.
    - tengbretson 8y ago
      Most people would argue that you already do have a contract with people that requires they do not steal from you.
scarface74 8y ago
How do we as individuals “require” companies to be ethical? At the end of the day, we don’t have the power to enforce ethics. We have to work within the framework of reality and get everything in writing.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nemo44x 8y ago
  Boycott them and don't purchase or use their products. If you feel strongly about it go further and organize more people to do the same. Try to convince people who don't feel the company is unethical that it is. But in the end you can't expect because you don't like a company that your feelings on what should happen to come to be. It's like so many people complaining on Twitter about Twitter not banning voices they don't like. If you don't like Twitter's policies then stop using their product. If enough people agree with you and do this they will change. If you feel it's worth spending your life organizing people to boycott Twitter then spend your life doing that. But the culture of demanding that platforms must adhere to someones arbitrary expectations as if using their platform is a right is ridiculous.
  - jschwartzi 8y ago
    This is exactly what I do with Uber. I don't use it. I use Lyft. This is because I don't consider Uber an ethical company, nor do I particularly like their HR and other management practices. I don't know very much about Lyft but I have yet to hear anything bad about them which is pretty encouraging.
    - lazerwalker 8y ago
      Peter Thiel is a major investor and board seat holder in Lyft. If your politics lead you to believe Uber is not an ethical company, that might also give you pause.
      - 8y ago
scns 8y ago
Maybe we should stop ascribing these decisions to faceless corporations, they are made by humans.

notyourday 8y ago

> There is such a thing as business ethics. TL;DR version of which is "Make as much money as possible or become irrelevant note in history" Edit: Oh, please. Downvotes keep demonstrating a total disconnect between HN responses that require pushing a downvote button and say mass resignation from Google or Facebook or Whatsapp or Well Fargo or Equifax that might trigger a response. So yes, the only business ethics that is relevant in the real world is "Make as much money as possible".

s73v3r_ 8y ago
No, the downvotes are for giving them a pass because they're trying to make money.
- notyourday 8y ago
  I may not like that if I go out in a rain I will get wet, but not acknowledging that as the fact won't keep me dry should I go out in a rain. They sold the company. By selling the company they have become employees, not founders with control. If they did not like it, they should not have sold. If they are remorseful, they can donate 100% of all the money that they made from a sale of the company as well as all the interest that they have accumulated to some me-so-sorry non-profit. Not 10%. Not 50%. 100%. Otherwise those are just empty words, just like protests of HN crowd working for Google, Facebook, Equifax, etc.: empty words that make them feel better.
jschwartzi 8y ago
There's a huge middle ground between being completely irrelevant that you're missing. Plenty of small and medium businesses abide by ethics and make ethical decisions every day. You just don't hear about them because it's not newsworthy that their management tries to do right by the employees or that they pay their bills on time. They're not noteworthy because they're the norm, not the exception.
- notyourday 8y ago
  Exactly. And those small and medium sized businesses are in the dust bin of history. These are the same businesses that everyone at HN laughs at as they only pay $40k/year for senior software engineers.

jamiequint 8y ago

Monetizing via ads is hardly disregarding business ethics, it's just a different way of monetizing.

scarface74 8y ago

Ascribing ethics or lack of ethics to a business is like ascribing the same traits to a non sentient being. Even if your manager is ethical and “cares” about the well being of his employees, his manager may not. Even if his manager does the board, the investors/shareholders, etc. probably don’t. The whole purpose of a corporation is that a corporation survives without regards of any one person getting hit by a bus. I worked for a struggling company a few years ago and management was very honest about the dire straights we were in, I was part of the team who sat in on interviews and did presentations for potential acquirers so I knew what was going on. I trusted management not to purposefully screw me over. But at the end of the day, if they “guaranteed me” that my check would clear for every hour I worked I wouldn’t have believed them. The only reason I stayed until the bitter end was because our VC backers promised us in writing that we would be payed until we got an official layoff notice.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Ascribing ethics or lack of ethics to a business is like ascribing the same traits to a non sentient being This is defeatist. Corporations can be sued in courts, just like people. Their obligations are binding, just like peoples'. There is a little more complexity to signing a deal with a corporation than a natural person because there are multiple sapient interests involved, but that's what lawyers are for. Protecting users' privacy was never prioritized in the acquisition process. If it had been, the anti-monetization clause would have been stronger. That's okay. We're talking about billions of dollars. But turning around and playing the good guy will take these men more than simply claiming ignorance.
- scarface74 8y ago
  This is defeatist. Corporations can be sued in courts, just like people. Their obligations are binding, just like peoples'. There is a little more complexity to signing a deal with a corporation than a natural person because there are multiple sapient interests involved, but that's what lawyers are for. I never said that companies go around breaking legally binding contracts or there is no recourse if they do. I said you shouldn’t trust a handshake deal when doing any business that amounts to real money. Get it in writing.