4 ms·

> If those individuals got together and agreed that maximizing shareholder profit was no longer the common aim, the digital infrastructure could be different.

> If those individuals got together and agreed that maximizing shareholder profit was no longer the common aim, the digital infrastructure could be different. The article refers to "those individuals" as FAANG CEO's. This article's stance that we just need big tech to forgo profits for the good of the people seems outrageous to me. Yes I would love to see it happen but I know it would never happen. Even if twitter, for example, made their algorithmic feed less addictive then that would just leave an opening for a competitor to come take market share. Even if our government somehow mandated that big tech cannot tune their algorithms to consume the max amount of attention (<- BTW I have no idea how that could be done) then how would it be regulated? Open source code? Government issued devices? Also what happens with non-US companies, like tik-tok, that dont have to follow this "be good" principle? This is just another vice created by technology that must be resisted by people in order to have a happy and balanced life. Another good example is food. Today's food is so addictive processed that we must resist in order to be happy. These vices did not previously exist.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
Not least because those executives are only in charge of those organisations because their shareholders appointed them, in the expectation that the CEO's would act in the shareholders' best interests [0]. Legally the CEO's cannot suddenly decide to go off and do something else [1]. So the article is a bit off-base. It's not the CEOs that we need to persuade to change tactic, but the shareholders. However, for a lot of institutional shareholders, they're tied to financial returns because they're managing funds full of other people's money with a legal obligation to maximise returns. There are "ethical" funds that could do this. Maybe we should be talking about this instead? An ethical fund with the specific aim of being an activist shareholder in Big Tech organisations? [0]You could make the case that this is in the shareholders' best interests, but I doubt a court would agree. [1]I have a feeling Zuckerberg is still a majority shareholder in FB, so maybe he can.

marcus_holmes 6y ago

Not least because those executives are only in charge of those organisations because their shareholders appointed them, in the expectation that the CEO's would act in the shareholders' best interests [0]. Legally the CEO's cannot suddenly decide to go off and do something else [1]. So the article is a bit off-base. It's not the CEOs that we need to persuade to change tactic, but the shareholders. However, for a lot of institutional shareholders, they're tied to financial returns because they're managing funds full of other people's money with a legal obligation to maximise returns. There are "ethical" funds that could do this. Maybe we should be talking about this instead? An ethical fund with the specific aim of being an activist shareholder in Big Tech organisations? [0]You could make the case that this is in the shareholders' best interests, but I doubt a court would agree. [1]I have a feeling Zuckerberg is still a majority shareholder in FB, so maybe he can.