3 ms·

> Given the prevalence of comments like this, I wonder why any company would ever bother offering an apology or retraction. Because the people running the comp

> Given the prevalence of comments like this, I wonder why any company would ever bother offering an apology or retraction. Because the people running the company have a conscience which causes them to feel bad and want to apologize when they harm people? Are we really entertaining the idea that the only reason someone might apologize is if it benefits them? It's disturbing to me how absolutely normal your comment is on Hacker News. There's a significant portion of HN whose entire concept of ethics seems to be, "if it's profitable, it's right" and who can't imagine any motivation except profit. Over and over again we see profitable corporations doing terrible things and people on HN defending them on no other grounds but the fact that what they are doing is profitable. And when people disagree, it's almost always because the profitable corporation's actions affect them directly. All I can conclude is that a significant number of HN users are just amoral, which is terrifying, because a lot of HN users hold positions with significant power. And before you tell me that everyone acts selfishly--no, they don't. I've met hundreds of wonderful people in my life who were generous, honest, kind, and/or brave, at great personal cost and risk to themselves. The behavior you're engaging in isn't normal, and it's not okay.

philwelch 6y ago
> Because the people running the company have a conscience which causes them to feel bad and want to apologize when they harm people? Are we really entertaining the idea that the only reason someone might apologize is if it benefits them? >... And before you tell me that everyone acts selfishly--no, they don't. I've met hundreds of wonderful people in my life who were generous, honest, kind, and/or brave, at great personal cost and risk to themselves. The behavior you're engaging in isn't normal, and it's not okay. I can see that you’re trying to be charitable, so let me try and be charitable in return. I actually kind of agree with the comment you’re responding to, but I don’t interpret it the same way you do. A normal, moral person like you or me will apologize out of genuine guilt. But then again, a normal, moral person like you or me doesn’t operate a business in a way that betrays the trust of its users. I don’t think everyone acts selfishly. But I do think that some people do. And even a selfish person would want to try and convincingly feign remorse for their selfish actions once those actions backfired and were no longer in their own self-interest.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  > I actually kind of agree with the comment you’re responding to, but I don’t interpret it the same way you do. I think akerl_ is saying that companies shouldn't bother apologizing when they do something wrong and get caught. I think that's some "lizard person school of business" shit that has no place in a civilized society.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    That’s one way of reading it. Another, more cynical reading is that if companies are amoral in the first place, why do they bother issuing insincere apologies that don’t actually benefit them? Less of a, “companies should be sociopathic” and more of a, “why do these sociopathic companies behave in this way that’s inconsistent with their otherwise-well-demonstrated pattern of sociopathic behavior?” And sure, maybe the answer is that they’re not sociopathic in the first place. But that’s a very non-cynical answer. Credulous, perhaps.
    - akerl_ 6y ago
      This, essentially. But more specifically: if I were in Triplebyte’s shoes, I’d have probably done one of two things: Either just release the feature anyway, and maybe default it to opt-in for people with existing content, maybe make it “only content from $now forward is public”, something to that effect. Halt the feature, but expend the minimum possible effort on the message out: “Hi all, we’ve reconsidered the feature in light of feedback. Thanks, CEO”. It’s not clear to me that applying more time/effort to explaining themselves to the world has done them any benefit. There’s the bulk of people who didn’t notice / don’t care, there’s people who are permanently angry, and there’s people who are going to want to see actual changes before they revisit. The people who work for a business are incentivized to live lives that let them sleep well at night, but it’s entirely possible for them to learn from this experience and behave differently in the future without bothering to respond to the mob.
      - kerkeslager 6y ago
        So basically, if you were in TripleByte's shoes, you'd react without conscience? You have accused me of misinterpreting your intent elsewhere, but really I don't know how you expect me to interpret this that would cast you in a more positive light. You're saying you would do unethical things, so I don't think I'm off-base to say you might be unethical.

philwelch 6y ago

> Because the people running the company have a conscience which causes them to feel bad and want to apologize when they harm people? Are we really entertaining the idea that the only reason someone might apologize is if it benefits them? >... And before you tell me that everyone acts selfishly--no, they don't. I've met hundreds of wonderful people in my life who were generous, honest, kind, and/or brave, at great personal cost and risk to themselves. The behavior you're engaging in isn't normal, and it's not okay. I can see that you’re trying to be charitable, so let me try and be charitable in return. I actually kind of agree with the comment you’re responding to, but I don’t interpret it the same way you do. A normal, moral person like you or me will apologize out of genuine guilt. But then again, a normal, moral person like you or me doesn’t operate a business in a way that betrays the trust of its users. I don’t think everyone acts selfishly. But I do think that some people do. And even a selfish person would want to try and convincingly feign remorse for their selfish actions once those actions backfired and were no longer in their own self-interest.

kerkeslager 6y ago
> I actually kind of agree with the comment you’re responding to, but I don’t interpret it the same way you do. I think akerl_ is saying that companies shouldn't bother apologizing when they do something wrong and get caught. I think that's some "lizard person school of business" shit that has no place in a civilized society.
- philwelch 6y ago
  That’s one way of reading it. Another, more cynical reading is that if companies are amoral in the first place, why do they bother issuing insincere apologies that don’t actually benefit them? Less of a, “companies should be sociopathic” and more of a, “why do these sociopathic companies behave in this way that’s inconsistent with their otherwise-well-demonstrated pattern of sociopathic behavior?” And sure, maybe the answer is that they’re not sociopathic in the first place. But that’s a very non-cynical answer. Credulous, perhaps.
  - akerl_ 6y ago
    This, essentially. But more specifically: if I were in Triplebyte’s shoes, I’d have probably done one of two things: Either just release the feature anyway, and maybe default it to opt-in for people with existing content, maybe make it “only content from $now forward is public”, something to that effect. Halt the feature, but expend the minimum possible effort on the message out: “Hi all, we’ve reconsidered the feature in light of feedback. Thanks, CEO”. It’s not clear to me that applying more time/effort to explaining themselves to the world has done them any benefit. There’s the bulk of people who didn’t notice / don’t care, there’s people who are permanently angry, and there’s people who are going to want to see actual changes before they revisit. The people who work for a business are incentivized to live lives that let them sleep well at night, but it’s entirely possible for them to learn from this experience and behave differently in the future without bothering to respond to the mob.
    - kerkeslager 6y ago
      So basically, if you were in TripleByte's shoes, you'd react without conscience? You have accused me of misinterpreting your intent elsewhere, but really I don't know how you expect me to interpret this that would cast you in a more positive light. You're saying you would do unethical things, so I don't think I'm off-base to say you might be unethical.