4 ms·

> (EDIT: Though maybe funding archive.org would count as that...?) That reminds me a bit on how Google "funds" Mozilla. Not the same, but when dealing with the

> (EDIT: Though maybe funding archive.org would count as that...?) That reminds me a bit on how Google "funds" Mozilla. Not the same, but when dealing with the devil...

derefr 6y ago
I've always thought that people think about this backwards. Every dollar the devil gives you, is one dollar less the devil has to spend on devilry. Especially when that dollar is just charity, and the devil isn't getting anything out of it. But it also applies when the devil is getting something out of it that satisfies their preferences, as long as that satisfaction isn't displacing a need that frees up any of their other dollars to now be dedicated toward devilry. Or, to put that another way: if you can charge [infamous politician] a million dollars for a fancy-but-useless painting, you absolutely should do so. Now you have a million dollars; they're out a million dollars; and all they have is a painting!
- gbear605 6y ago
  The issue comes when the politician comes back to you and says “Hey, I gave you a great deal on that painting, can you do a favor for me?” Extracting money from bad sources is good as long as you absolutely positively don’t extract anything else. That’s hard to do in any circumstance. However, in this situation I think it’s fine and worth it.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Exactly right. And I agree pretty strongly. Unironically, this is why I think accepting money from the Saudi Arabian Sovereign Wealth Fund can be a great force for good. Adam Neumann may (again unironically) be a remarkable hero, accidentally.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  This only works if you accept money from every devil that passes you by. If the majority of your funding comes from one devil, it doesn't matter how perfectly normal the underlying business transaction is - the moment you get in the way of your devilry, you're out a job. Mozilla is a good case study in this: they are financially dependent on Google money to continue browser development. Google hasn't actually intervened in their affairs a whole lot. However, they could, which is why they're going through all sorts of self-inflicted harm trying to get away from their business of selling a browser default to a search engine. Public companies are even worse, because what they are looking for isn't money, it's more money, or "growth". This is why a lot of American media companies suddenly got really quiet about certain kinds of atrocities committed by certain governments. If you call the devil out on concentration camps full of Uighurs, then maybe he doesn't buy your paintings anymore, and then you're out of the painting biz.
  - derefr 6y ago
    You’re talking about being employed by a devil, or maybe receiving continuing patronage from a devil. I’m talking more about having the one-off opportunity to drain a devil’s coffers (whether or not you get the resulting money), without having the ability to turn that into an ongoing relationship. Basically, this is the other side of the coin to the idea that iterating the Prisoner’s Dilemma gets you the potential for tit-for-tat, and thereby cooperation under expectation of tit-for-tat. In this case, “defecting” against a devil is good — but, just like in the traditional Prisoner’s Dilemma, it’s only practical to defect if the scenario is one-shot.

> (EDIT: Though maybe funding archive.org would count as that...?) That reminds me a bit on how Google "funds" Mozilla. Not the same, but when dealing with the devil...

derefr 6y ago

I've always thought that people think about this backwards. Every dollar the devil gives you, is one dollar less the devil has to spend on devilry. Especially when that dollar is just charity, and the devil isn't getting anything out of it. But it also applies when the devil is getting something out of it that satisfies their preferences, as long as that satisfaction isn't displacing a need that frees up any of their other dollars to now be dedicated toward devilry. Or, to put that another way: if you can charge [infamous politician] a million dollars for a fancy-but-useless painting, you absolutely should do so. Now you have a million dollars; they're out a million dollars; and all they have is a painting!

gbear605 6y ago
The issue comes when the politician comes back to you and says “Hey, I gave you a great deal on that painting, can you do a favor for me?” Extracting money from bad sources is good as long as you absolutely positively don’t extract anything else. That’s hard to do in any circumstance. However, in this situation I think it’s fine and worth it.
renewiltord 6y ago
Exactly right. And I agree pretty strongly. Unironically, this is why I think accepting money from the Saudi Arabian Sovereign Wealth Fund can be a great force for good. Adam Neumann may (again unironically) be a remarkable hero, accidentally.
kmeisthax 6y ago
This only works if you accept money from every devil that passes you by. If the majority of your funding comes from one devil, it doesn't matter how perfectly normal the underlying business transaction is - the moment you get in the way of your devilry, you're out a job. Mozilla is a good case study in this: they are financially dependent on Google money to continue browser development. Google hasn't actually intervened in their affairs a whole lot. However, they could, which is why they're going through all sorts of self-inflicted harm trying to get away from their business of selling a browser default to a search engine. Public companies are even worse, because what they are looking for isn't money, it's more money, or "growth". This is why a lot of American media companies suddenly got really quiet about certain kinds of atrocities committed by certain governments. If you call the devil out on concentration camps full of Uighurs, then maybe he doesn't buy your paintings anymore, and then you're out of the painting biz.
- derefr 6y ago
  You’re talking about being employed by a devil, or maybe receiving continuing patronage from a devil. I’m talking more about having the one-off opportunity to drain a devil’s coffers (whether or not you get the resulting money), without having the ability to turn that into an ongoing relationship. Basically, this is the other side of the coin to the idea that iterating the Prisoner’s Dilemma gets you the potential for tit-for-tat, and thereby cooperation under expectation of tit-for-tat. In this case, “defecting” against a devil is good — but, just like in the traditional Prisoner’s Dilemma, it’s only practical to defect if the scenario is one-shot.