3 ms·

My intention was to clarify it as "moral" was mainly to contrast it to "legal" (which depending on jurisdiction I would assume it might not be). And what is wr

My intention was to clarify it as "moral" was mainly to contrast it to "legal" (which depending on jurisdiction I would assume it might not be). And what is wrong with invoking morals? If people think that acting "sustainable" is important according to their morals, why not alert them that someone is deceiving them in that aspect? If a competitor has put significant effort into actually being sustainable, while Autodesk is just using the term like that, publicizing it in this way just adds transparency for decision making. If a competitor is just as bad as Autodesk, publicizing it would just sensitize everyone to the problem and likely blow up into their face later. Why do you think it would make a difference if a competitor pushes the message (as long as the message is true)?

pphysch 6y ago
> Why do you think it would make a difference if a competitor pushes the message (as long as the message is true)? Because then it comes off as a cheap-shot to gain more clients and not an antifragile movement to make headway in the current climate disaster. It has the potential to corrupt and cause real long-term damage to such movements if they are only used as means to profit financially in the short-term. Again this is totally hypothetical in this case. I think vigilance is required even in what are facially "morally pure" causes.
- hobofan 6y ago
  I for one would welcome that. Companies that _actually_ act sustainable gaining headway over companies that don't sounds like a win-win to me. > It has the potential to corrupt and cause real long-term damage to such movements if they are only used as means to profit financially in the short-term. If they are only claiming to support the movement, and don't act according to it (like Autodesk does), that's what damages the movement. I don't see how a company that acts exactly like the movement wants to is damaging it.

pphysch 6y ago

> Why do you think it would make a difference if a competitor pushes the message (as long as the message is true)? Because then it comes off as a cheap-shot to gain more clients and not an antifragile movement to make headway in the current climate disaster. It has the potential to corrupt and cause real long-term damage to such movements if they are only used as means to profit financially in the short-term. Again this is totally hypothetical in this case. I think vigilance is required even in what are facially "morally pure" causes.

hobofan 6y ago
I for one would welcome that. Companies that _actually_ act sustainable gaining headway over companies that don't sounds like a win-win to me. > It has the potential to corrupt and cause real long-term damage to such movements if they are only used as means to profit financially in the short-term. If they are only claiming to support the movement, and don't act according to it (like Autodesk does), that's what damages the movement. I don't see how a company that acts exactly like the movement wants to is damaging it.