3 ms·

You can always come up with a sinister motivation for a good act. The question is whether there's evidence to support that surmise. I guess that's why sometimes

You can always come up with a sinister motivation for a good act. The question is whether there's evidence to support that surmise. I guess that's why sometimes it's best to look at the effects of the system rather than the intention behind it. Do the training actually have the effects that one would desire from them, if one had good intentions? At least in my case, the answer is yes. I have never thought about my work in terms of besting the competition. But then again I'm nobody important so what I think doesn't matter all that much. It would be interesting to know the mind of the executives whose thoughts on this subject might actually have an impact. Maybe during the upcoming lawsuits we'll be able to see more deeply into what they have been thinking.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
> You can always come up with a sinister motivation for a good act. You can also come up with a beneficial motivation for a sinister (or at least, not morally positive) act. (This is the one Google employs.) Google is a corporation, and it exists to extract money effectively from others to make it's shareholders rich. If a corporation says it is doing something for the good of the public, it's because looking good has positive value for the corporate brand. To some degree, there is also value in convincing employees that they are benefiting society as well: They work harder and above requirements without you having to pay them more, and they'll defend and advocate for their employer on social media for free. ;) That, of course, also has a positive value for the corporate brand. I definitely think the revealed internal emails (from all of Big Tech) will be exciting to see. It wasn't a surprise, for instance, but the emails about how Kindle purchases in iOS were shut down by Apple because of an Amazon ad about how Kindle books could come with you from iPhone to Android was very, very blunt.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  [Google/corporations] exist to extract money effectively from others to make it's shareholders rich . . . . . . by giving people something they want more than the money they're exchanging with the corporation. It's a positive sum game, at least in my estimation. But, yes, Google is not a charity, and I don't mean to pretend that it is more noble than it is. I'm not a charity either. I wouldn't do my work for free. But I don't blame anyone for being suspicious of Google or any other corporation's behavior. It's important to verify that corporations are behaving, because there have been plenty of instances of corporate malfeasance in the past.
- class4behavior 6y ago
  > there is also value in convincing employees that they are benefiting society as welll: They work harder and above requirements without you having to pay them more, and they'll defend and advocate for their employer on social media for free. ;) Convincing one's employees of a particular perspective or belief has been a basic tactic of large corporations for decades. Tech culture disrupted this for a little bit, though.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

> You can always come up with a sinister motivation for a good act. You can also come up with a beneficial motivation for a sinister (or at least, not morally positive) act. (This is the one Google employs.) Google is a corporation, and it exists to extract money effectively from others to make it's shareholders rich. If a corporation says it is doing something for the good of the public, it's because looking good has positive value for the corporate brand. To some degree, there is also value in convincing employees that they are benefiting society as well: They work harder and above requirements without you having to pay them more, and they'll defend and advocate for their employer on social media for free. ;) That, of course, also has a positive value for the corporate brand. I definitely think the revealed internal emails (from all of Big Tech) will be exciting to see. It wasn't a surprise, for instance, but the emails about how Kindle purchases in iOS were shut down by Apple because of an Amazon ad about how Kindle books could come with you from iPhone to Android was very, very blunt.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
[Google/corporations] exist to extract money effectively from others to make it's shareholders rich . . . . . . by giving people something they want more than the money they're exchanging with the corporation. It's a positive sum game, at least in my estimation. But, yes, Google is not a charity, and I don't mean to pretend that it is more noble than it is. I'm not a charity either. I wouldn't do my work for free. But I don't blame anyone for being suspicious of Google or any other corporation's behavior. It's important to verify that corporations are behaving, because there have been plenty of instances of corporate malfeasance in the past.
class4behavior 6y ago
> there is also value in convincing employees that they are benefiting society as welll: They work harder and above requirements without you having to pay them more, and they'll defend and advocate for their employer on social media for free. ;) Convincing one's employees of a particular perspective or belief has been a basic tactic of large corporations for decades. Tech culture disrupted this for a little bit, though.