4 ms·

9/ For many people there is little difference between what is legal and what is moral. This mindset is especially dangerous when it is held by people in power,

9/ For many people there is little difference between what is legal and what is moral. This mindset is especially dangerous when it is held by people in power, such as Google's executives. The mindset is: if it's a legal requirement to censor, then we should do it. Except when standing on a moral pedestal does not hurt your bottom line. Then apparently it's ok to dictate what is moral and what is not, what is good and what is evil and use your power to force your agenda. It's not google's (or any company's) version of morality that gets me, it's always the hypocrisy

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
The free market does have a tendency of weeding out those companies that act morally beyond legality, because less moral competitors can outcompete them. So as a survival bias, less moral companies are just more likely to be left standing. Likewise, morality beyond legality is much more likely if it doesn’t yield any ground to competitors (ie effect the bottom line), so what you see as hypocrisy might again just be survival bias in a free market.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  Don't know why you single out free markets there. A lack of scruples can be advantageous in economically closed environments as well.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    Survival bias applies to a lot of situations. For example, in a system where corruption is endemic, non-corrupt officials won’t get promoted (because they have no dirt higher ups can use against them and/or don’t bribe the right people), leaving only corrupt officials. Do non-corrupt officials exist? Yes, but they are not likely to survive to he noticed.
- ced 8y ago
  That's true in competitive markets, but in tech, winner-takes-all happens more often than not, and it affords the winner a lot of freedom.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    True, survival bias only applies to competitive markets. Google still has leeway to leave China on the table without going out of business, especially since Chinese tech companies remain isolated from the rest of the world.
- albelfio 8y ago
  Free market ideally tends to reward who’s morally right or ethical as people prefer companies to be ethically responsible. China has no free market.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    That isn’t true at all. People prefer companies that provide them the services they want at the best price. A few activists that prefer otherwise are fairly niche. China has a somewhat free market, but the lack of rule of law means that the rules governing it are more complex (in addition to, or even instead of, following the law you have to be pleasing politically to the government).
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  Under oligopoly, the FAANG companies are kings. The could: - create bilateral trade agreements that promote ethical standards (instead of finding ways around them) - lobby for more ethical laws globally (instead of lobbying for maximum legal freedom)
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    As job governmental organizations, they have little influence in this. Sure they could lobby, but the voters and government branches need to be on board with it also.
- kgwxd 8y ago
  Also, people in positions of potential power to steer a company back on the right course leave in protest at the most cruicial moments, opening a spot at the wheel for a yes-person.
- lvoudour 8y ago
  > Likewise, morality beyond legality is much more likely if it doesn’t yield any ground to competitors Then, why do it at all? You want to tell the world what is right and wrong, fine, do it as an individual, write a book, found a religion or something. Enforcing your moral values inside the company and even worse, using the company's power to force them to the world - only to abandon them when it hurts profits - is perverse IMO.
  - zucan 8y ago
    > Enforcing your moral values inside the company and even worse, using the company's power to force them to the world - only to abandon them when it hurts profits - is perverse IMO. The same could be said about executives and their lack of moral values. Except the C-level actually wields the power to control the company.
um_ya 8y ago
I see this argument being used a lot now. "It's okay to censor Alex Jones because it's done by a private industry". "Presumption of innocence doesn't apply to Judge Kav because this is a 'job interview'". I feel what's lacking here is core principles.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

The free market does have a tendency of weeding out those companies that act morally beyond legality, because less moral competitors can outcompete them. So as a survival bias, less moral companies are just more likely to be left standing. Likewise, morality beyond legality is much more likely if it doesn’t yield any ground to competitors (ie effect the bottom line), so what you see as hypocrisy might again just be survival bias in a free market.

humanrebar 8y ago
Don't know why you single out free markets there. A lack of scruples can be advantageous in economically closed environments as well.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  Survival bias applies to a lot of situations. For example, in a system where corruption is endemic, non-corrupt officials won’t get promoted (because they have no dirt higher ups can use against them and/or don’t bribe the right people), leaving only corrupt officials. Do non-corrupt officials exist? Yes, but they are not likely to survive to he noticed.
ced 8y ago
That's true in competitive markets, but in tech, winner-takes-all happens more often than not, and it affords the winner a lot of freedom.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  True, survival bias only applies to competitive markets. Google still has leeway to leave China on the table without going out of business, especially since Chinese tech companies remain isolated from the rest of the world.
albelfio 8y ago
Free market ideally tends to reward who’s morally right or ethical as people prefer companies to be ethically responsible. China has no free market.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  That isn’t true at all. People prefer companies that provide them the services they want at the best price. A few activists that prefer otherwise are fairly niche. China has a somewhat free market, but the lack of rule of law means that the rules governing it are more complex (in addition to, or even instead of, following the law you have to be pleasing politically to the government).
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
Under oligopoly, the FAANG companies are kings. The could: - create bilateral trade agreements that promote ethical standards (instead of finding ways around them) - lobby for more ethical laws globally (instead of lobbying for maximum legal freedom)
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  As job governmental organizations, they have little influence in this. Sure they could lobby, but the voters and government branches need to be on board with it also.
kgwxd 8y ago
Also, people in positions of potential power to steer a company back on the right course leave in protest at the most cruicial moments, opening a spot at the wheel for a yes-person.
lvoudour 8y ago
> Likewise, morality beyond legality is much more likely if it doesn’t yield any ground to competitors Then, why do it at all? You want to tell the world what is right and wrong, fine, do it as an individual, write a book, found a religion or something. Enforcing your moral values inside the company and even worse, using the company's power to force them to the world - only to abandon them when it hurts profits - is perverse IMO.
- zucan 8y ago
  > Enforcing your moral values inside the company and even worse, using the company's power to force them to the world - only to abandon them when it hurts profits - is perverse IMO. The same could be said about executives and their lack of moral values. Except the C-level actually wields the power to control the company.

um_ya 8y ago

I see this argument being used a lot now. "It's okay to censor Alex Jones because it's done by a private industry". "Presumption of innocence doesn't apply to Judge Kav because this is a 'job interview'". I feel what's lacking here is core principles.