6 ms·

>> 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

by 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.
    - aylmao 8y ago
      > don't have a contract or prior agreement with them and also predict that some people won't respect my property. How does this apply to the founders though. They sold, so isn't WhatsApp now not their property?
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    IANAL, but my understanding is that this isn't true, and the whole subfield of tort law [1] is about the rights and obligations that firms have even in the absence of a contract. If you steal trade secrets from a competitor, even if you have no contract or business relationship with them, they can still sue you for a very large amount of money and possibly get an injunction against using that stolen information. Similarly for cases of patent/copyright infringement, libel, slander, price-fixing, antitrust, etc. I suspect that a large class of these "business ethics" violations are actually torts, but the problem with enforcing them is that to do so you a.) need to know what your rights are b.) need to detect violations of them and c.) need to bring a lawsuit against the offender. I remember that on Google's invention disclosure form, one of the questions was "How easy would it be to detect if a competitor was using this invention in their product?", and if the answer was "We'd never know", we wouldn't patent the idea and would keep it as a trade secret instead, on the assumption that if a competitor could use the invention illegally without us knowing about it, they would, and so it was better to deny them knowledge of the invention entirely than to publish and try to enforce unenforceable rights. When the aggrieved party is a consumer or worker, it's triply difficult, as most consumers a.) aren't aware of their rights b.) have no information about what's going on inside big corporations and c.) don't have money to sue even if they know. Many of the ethical problems in U.S. business today stem from the legal system not being able to scale up to 300M often poorly-informed citizens. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
    - scarface74 8y ago
      And how well will a handshake - he said/she said agreement hold up in court? How easy is it for one party to “misremember” what was said? There is a reason almost every contract has an “entire agreements clause”
      - nostrademons 8y ago
        Torts aren't handshake agreements. They're duties that the state decides that all organizations owe to citizens or other organizations, by virtue of existing, but which should be enforced by the party who is actually wronged. (This is what distinguishes them from "crimes", which are forbidden actions that the state actively pursues.) In this case, Acton's not the aggrieved party. The consumer is - they could argue that Facebook's introduction of advertising and linking of user data harmed them in a way they had not agreed to when they signed up for Whatsapp, or that its purchase violated antitrust law and reduced consumer choice. But good luck enforcing that, at least in the US, where privacy protections are weak and antitrust regulators are asleep. It looks like the EU regulators actually did enforce it, and slapped FB with a $122M fine, but that's peanuts for them.
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.

by 394549 8y ago

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.
  - aylmao 8y ago
    > don't have a contract or prior agreement with them and also predict that some people won't respect my property. How does this apply to the founders though. They sold, so isn't WhatsApp now not their property?
- nostrademons 8y ago
  IANAL, but my understanding is that this isn't true, and the whole subfield of tort law [1] is about the rights and obligations that firms have even in the absence of a contract. If you steal trade secrets from a competitor, even if you have no contract or business relationship with them, they can still sue you for a very large amount of money and possibly get an injunction against using that stolen information. Similarly for cases of patent/copyright infringement, libel, slander, price-fixing, antitrust, etc. I suspect that a large class of these "business ethics" violations are actually torts, but the problem with enforcing them is that to do so you a.) need to know what your rights are b.) need to detect violations of them and c.) need to bring a lawsuit against the offender. I remember that on Google's invention disclosure form, one of the questions was "How easy would it be to detect if a competitor was using this invention in their product?", and if the answer was "We'd never know", we wouldn't patent the idea and would keep it as a trade secret instead, on the assumption that if a competitor could use the invention illegally without us knowing about it, they would, and so it was better to deny them knowledge of the invention entirely than to publish and try to enforce unenforceable rights. When the aggrieved party is a consumer or worker, it's triply difficult, as most consumers a.) aren't aware of their rights b.) have no information about what's going on inside big corporations and c.) don't have money to sue even if they know. Many of the ethical problems in U.S. business today stem from the legal system not being able to scale up to 300M often poorly-informed citizens. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
  - scarface74 8y ago
    And how well will a handshake - he said/she said agreement hold up in court? How easy is it for one party to “misremember” what was said? There is a reason almost every contract has an “entire agreements clause”
    - nostrademons 8y ago
      Torts aren't handshake agreements. They're duties that the state decides that all organizations owe to citizens or other organizations, by virtue of existing, but which should be enforced by the party who is actually wronged. (This is what distinguishes them from "crimes", which are forbidden actions that the state actively pursues.) In this case, Acton's not the aggrieved party. The consumer is - they could argue that Facebook's introduction of advertising and linking of user data harmed them in a way they had not agreed to when they signed up for Whatsapp, or that its purchase violated antitrust law and reduced consumer choice. But good luck enforcing that, at least in the US, where privacy protections are weak and antitrust regulators are asleep. It looks like the EU regulators actually did enforce it, and slapped FB with a $122M fine, but that's peanuts for them.

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.