3 ms·

> It's the same thing as saying we shouldn't buy Saudi oil. If the only result is that you buy some other oil and the people who would have bought that oil buy

by afro88 8y ago

> It's the same thing as saying we shouldn't buy Saudi oil. If the only result is that you buy some other oil and the people who would have bought that oil buy the Saudi oil, nothing meaningful has changed. I think this touches on another thing I've struggled for clarity on lately. How many degrees of separation do you need before you're willing to take investment from someone linked to something you find morally repugnant? 1 degree is relatively clear cut (though can still get muddy depending on how desperate your situation is). Is 2 degrees enough to decide it's ok? 3 degrees? At a certain stage, it's arguable that benefiting one end of the chain won't result in observable benefit for the other. Where though? And at what stage does the benefit to society of your project outweigh the negatives of where the money that funds it came from?

rocqua 8y ago
There isn't a clear line, and there probably cannot be one. First of all, more than just 'degree of separation' matters. You also need to know what fraction comes from bad sources. If it is 3 fronts stacked, you are still essentially dealing with the bad source. I see 2 options: 1) Flip it. At what standard do I eliminate e.g. 20% of all funding. Or more generally, plot repugnancy against the percentage of funding sources lost, and pick an optimum 2) Make news matter. It might not feel objective to drop a deal for 3 degrees of separation when you read a story. After all, there is probably other stuff that has 3 degrees of separation. However, by reacting to that news you: * Outsource information gathering to Journalists, who are specialized and do it for many more people than you * Increasing the impact of journalism. By making investors care about what is written about them. The second point matters, because fear of bad PR is essentially the only capitalist force that pushes companies towards moral behavior.
- Applejinx 8y ago
  Many journalists (and news outlets) are currently fired and not working in the sense you mean, because Facebook made a compelling (and fraudulent) case that millenials only watched videos. Across the industry, news outlets got rid of journalists to repurpose investment in video production.

by afro88 8y ago

rocqua 8y ago

There isn't a clear line, and there probably cannot be one. First of all, more than just 'degree of separation' matters. You also need to know what fraction comes from bad sources. If it is 3 fronts stacked, you are still essentially dealing with the bad source. I see 2 options: 1) Flip it. At what standard do I eliminate e.g. 20% of all funding. Or more generally, plot repugnancy against the percentage of funding sources lost, and pick an optimum 2) Make news matter. It might not feel objective to drop a deal for 3 degrees of separation when you read a story. After all, there is probably other stuff that has 3 degrees of separation. However, by reacting to that news you: * Outsource information gathering to Journalists, who are specialized and do it for many more people than you * Increasing the impact of journalism. By making investors care about what is written about them. The second point matters, because fear of bad PR is essentially the only capitalist force that pushes companies towards moral behavior.

Applejinx 8y ago
Many journalists (and news outlets) are currently fired and not working in the sense you mean, because Facebook made a compelling (and fraudulent) case that millenials only watched videos. Across the industry, news outlets got rid of journalists to repurpose investment in video production.