4 ms·

Why do you think this? And what problems does it solve and how?

pstuart 7y ago
Thank you for asking. Corporations are effectively machines designed for one purpose: making money. Now add in the fact that corporations are composed of people, and people typically put themselves first before others. The point is: money comes first, and truth is somewhere down the line. So if an accusation comes in that a corporation is doing something wrong and there is an obvious financial incentive for them to do so, and a "reasonable person" could construe such, then said corp should be rightfully compelled to prove otherwise. After all, if they have nothing to hide, then it should be such a big deal. tl;dr: Corporations aren't there for your health, but for theirs.
- slfnflctd 7y ago
  As long as Citizens United is upheld, despite how extreme this may seem I actually agree with it. Provided there was a sufficiently high bar for proving "an obvious financial incentive for them" (I see that as the most tricky part). Of course it will never happen and I'd rather just have C.U. thrown out, but it's a decent thought experiment.
  - pstuart 7y ago
    CU was a travesty of justice. Money is not speech, money is power. It's not about proving incentives, it's about complaints like the OP being brushed off without satisfactory evidence. Do I have a good solution? No, but I do think that we need to continue to talk about "trust" in the business community. And I was kinda cranky atm.
    - msla 7y ago
      > CU was a travesty of justice. Money is not speech, money is power. Do you agree when it's corporations like the ACLU making campaign contributions?
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  It's not unreasonable at all. We essentially do that already with finance. We don't just blindly trust the company's tweets about finance until they are somehow eventually proved wrong. We require accounts to a certain standard and for them to be audited, and listing brings standards of financial disclosure. Obviously this isn't perfect either. Seems reasonable to expect some duty of care and accountability for other matters of the company - the research that proves they knew smoking causes cancer, the blind eye to conditions or pollution, the scam javascript to fake up some artificial scarcity in booking, the illegal pricing scheme. The list is long, and history is full of examples. Seems fair to require them past some point - of employees or turnover maybe - to prove they are fit to inhabit the world with the rest of us.
pstuart 7y ago
> what problems does it solve and how? Problem: Trust How: Easier said than done. The key point is to acknowledge that businesses (even those we love), can sometimes do shifty shit. So if a "reasonable" public complaint is made, the default response is: that is an understandable concern and here is the data to assuage you that your worries are unfounded. Lyft did not do this. From the article: Lyft’s hiding of the rider’s fare from drivers, which the company says began rolling out on September 12, came just a few weeks after a Jalopnik investigation found Uber and Lyft take a much higher portion of each fare than they publicly admit. Both companies denied those findings, but refused to provide any raw data to support their claims. Jalopnik used the information drivers could see about each fare, including the amount the rider paid, to conduct its study of 14,756 fares.

Thank you for asking. Corporations are effectively machines designed for one purpose: making money. Now add in the fact that corporations are composed of people, and people typically put themselves first before others. The point is: money comes first, and truth is somewhere down the line. So if an accusation comes in that a corporation is doing something wrong and there is an obvious financial incentive for them to do so, and a "reasonable person" could construe such, then said corp should be rightfully compelled to prove otherwise. After all, if they have nothing to hide, then it should be such a big deal. tl;dr: Corporations aren't there for your health, but for theirs.

slfnflctd 7y ago
As long as Citizens United is upheld, despite how extreme this may seem I actually agree with it. Provided there was a sufficiently high bar for proving "an obvious financial incentive for them" (I see that as the most tricky part). Of course it will never happen and I'd rather just have C.U. thrown out, but it's a decent thought experiment.
- pstuart 7y ago
  CU was a travesty of justice. Money is not speech, money is power. It's not about proving incentives, it's about complaints like the OP being brushed off without satisfactory evidence. Do I have a good solution? No, but I do think that we need to continue to talk about "trust" in the business community. And I was kinda cranky atm.
  - msla 7y ago
    > CU was a travesty of justice. Money is not speech, money is power. Do you agree when it's corporations like the ACLU making campaign contributions?
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
It's not unreasonable at all. We essentially do that already with finance. We don't just blindly trust the company's tweets about finance until they are somehow eventually proved wrong. We require accounts to a certain standard and for them to be audited, and listing brings standards of financial disclosure. Obviously this isn't perfect either. Seems reasonable to expect some duty of care and accountability for other matters of the company - the research that proves they knew smoking causes cancer, the blind eye to conditions or pollution, the scam javascript to fake up some artificial scarcity in booking, the illegal pricing scheme. The list is long, and history is full of examples. Seems fair to require them past some point - of employees or turnover maybe - to prove they are fit to inhabit the world with the rest of us.

pstuart 7y ago

> what problems does it solve and how? Problem: Trust How: Easier said than done. The key point is to acknowledge that businesses (even those we love), can sometimes do shifty shit. So if a "reasonable" public complaint is made, the default response is: that is an understandable concern and here is the data to assuage you that your worries are unfounded. Lyft did not do this. From the article: Lyft’s hiding of the rider’s fare from drivers, which the company says began rolling out on September 12, came just a few weeks after a Jalopnik investigation found Uber and Lyft take a much higher portion of each fare than they publicly admit. Both companies denied those findings, but refused to provide any raw data to support their claims. Jalopnik used the information drivers could see about each fare, including the amount the rider paid, to conduct its study of 14,756 fares.