4 ms·

I believe they're saying that it _doesn't_ have negative returns. The fine is under 1 billion dollars, and the poster you replied to is saying they're "reasonab

by doytch 5y ago

I believe they're saying that it _doesn't_ have negative returns. The fine is under 1 billion dollars, and the poster you replied to is saying they're "reasonably certain that [Amazon] earned more than $1B by using this targeting information." So the poster is saying that they believe it was worth it for Amazon to break the law and pay an $888 million fine.

benjaminjosephw 5y ago
But, of course, the fine isn't a price point for unlawful behaviour but a penalty levied in judgement of the fact that the company violated the social contract. Seeing fines simply as a business cost would be a serious distortion of the way society should function. Could people in boardrooms actually entertain that kind of reasoning in good conscience? I really hope not.
- hobs 5y ago
  Genuinely - are you being sarcastic or just a rube? People in boardrooms dont entertain reasoning in good conscience because conscience doesn't come into it - just "Does this make us more money?"
  - benjaminjosephw 5y ago
    Boardroom greed might follow a logical rational but this behaviour isn't reasonable in the long run. Disregard of fairness and civil conduct won't be worth the eventual cost of a society that becomes increasingly opposed to the system itself. Break the law once, shame on you - pay a fine. Break it twice, well, we might rewrite the law so the fine is enough to actually deter you. Break it three times and shame on us for letting you trade at all.
    - thereare5lights 5y ago
      > Boardroom greed might follow a logical rational but this behaviour isn't reasonable in the long run. We already see that boards don't care about the long run in the US. Companies chase short term gains at the expense of everything else all the time. > Disregard of fairness and civil conduct won't be worth the eventual cost of a society that becomes increasingly opposed to the system itself. This is true but it doesn't matter if the people running things are short sighted and selfish.
    - hobs 5y ago
      There's no long term strategic plan - people are mortal and time out of boardrooms just in time for their golden parachutes to open.
      - adventured 5y ago
        With Amazon there has been a long-term strategic plan. Bezos had been operating Amazon at a high level for a quarter of a century and most of his personal wealth is tied up in the stock. Your golden parachute premise doesn't apply in this case. There was a strategic plan, Bezos wasn't counting the seconds waiting on a golden parachute. Amazon is largely commanded by long-serving execs that notoriously take a long-term strategic view, not executives looking to bail out at any moment. Jassy for example has been there since 1997. Amazon's ad business has extraordinary margins and is growing fast. They knew they could afford speed bumps between the starting block and where they plan to end up (one of the world's largest ad networks, reliably printing $30 billion per year in operating income).
        hobs 5y ago
        That's one company, and the long term you are discussing is for their own benefit, not to the long term benefit the poster was discussing, so you prove my point. Long term view is something like 1,000 years TO START. A 20-50 year viewpoint is a baby.
        thereare5lights 5y ago
        Your whole argument is about long term good to Amazon. This is what this subthread is talking about >But, of course, the fine isn't a price point for unlawful behaviour but a penalty levied in judgement of the fact that the company violated the social contract. Seeing fines simply as a business cost would be a serious distortion of the way society should function. Could people in boardrooms actually entertain that kind of reasoning in good conscience? I really hope not. >>People in boardrooms dont entertain reasoning in good conscience because conscience doesn't come into it - just "Does this make us more money?" >>>Boardroom greed might follow a logical rational but this behaviour isn't reasonable in the long run. Disregard of fairness and civil conduct won't be worth the eventual cost of a society that becomes increasingly opposed to the system itself. They're talking about societal good.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  It's a principle in western law that punishments be specified ahead of time so that a person could choose to break the law if they felt it was worthy. In such a framework punishments cannot be so extreme that you would never consider breaking the law. IMO the dismay at this idea is coming from those who consider law as part of morality, in which case, it may be immoral to even develop a calculus for ignoring morality when the material returns are good enough.
- fmajid 5y ago
  Continued violation would lead to repeated (and possibly escalating) fines. This one was nowhere near 4% of revenues that is the upper limit, and specially for a company like Amazon 4% of revenues would be incredibly high.

by doytch 5y ago

benjaminjosephw 5y ago

But, of course, the fine isn't a price point for unlawful behaviour but a penalty levied in judgement of the fact that the company violated the social contract. Seeing fines simply as a business cost would be a serious distortion of the way society should function. Could people in boardrooms actually entertain that kind of reasoning in good conscience? I really hope not.

hobs 5y ago
Genuinely - are you being sarcastic or just a rube? People in boardrooms dont entertain reasoning in good conscience because conscience doesn't come into it - just "Does this make us more money?"
- benjaminjosephw 5y ago
  Boardroom greed might follow a logical rational but this behaviour isn't reasonable in the long run. Disregard of fairness and civil conduct won't be worth the eventual cost of a society that becomes increasingly opposed to the system itself. Break the law once, shame on you - pay a fine. Break it twice, well, we might rewrite the law so the fine is enough to actually deter you. Break it three times and shame on us for letting you trade at all.
  - thereare5lights 5y ago
    > Boardroom greed might follow a logical rational but this behaviour isn't reasonable in the long run. We already see that boards don't care about the long run in the US. Companies chase short term gains at the expense of everything else all the time. > Disregard of fairness and civil conduct won't be worth the eventual cost of a society that becomes increasingly opposed to the system itself. This is true but it doesn't matter if the people running things are short sighted and selfish.
  - hobs 5y ago
    There's no long term strategic plan - people are mortal and time out of boardrooms just in time for their golden parachutes to open.
    - adventured 5y ago
      With Amazon there has been a long-term strategic plan. Bezos had been operating Amazon at a high level for a quarter of a century and most of his personal wealth is tied up in the stock. Your golden parachute premise doesn't apply in this case. There was a strategic plan, Bezos wasn't counting the seconds waiting on a golden parachute. Amazon is largely commanded by long-serving execs that notoriously take a long-term strategic view, not executives looking to bail out at any moment. Jassy for example has been there since 1997. Amazon's ad business has extraordinary margins and is growing fast. They knew they could afford speed bumps between the starting block and where they plan to end up (one of the world's largest ad networks, reliably printing $30 billion per year in operating income).
      - hobs 5y ago
        That's one company, and the long term you are discussing is for their own benefit, not to the long term benefit the poster was discussing, so you prove my point. Long term view is something like 1,000 years TO START. A 20-50 year viewpoint is a baby.
      - thereare5lights 5y ago
        Your whole argument is about long term good to Amazon. This is what this subthread is talking about >But, of course, the fine isn't a price point for unlawful behaviour but a penalty levied in judgement of the fact that the company violated the social contract. Seeing fines simply as a business cost would be a serious distortion of the way society should function. Could people in boardrooms actually entertain that kind of reasoning in good conscience? I really hope not. >>People in boardrooms dont entertain reasoning in good conscience because conscience doesn't come into it - just "Does this make us more money?" >>>Boardroom greed might follow a logical rational but this behaviour isn't reasonable in the long run. Disregard of fairness and civil conduct won't be worth the eventual cost of a society that becomes increasingly opposed to the system itself. They're talking about societal good.
threatofrain 5y ago
It's a principle in western law that punishments be specified ahead of time so that a person could choose to break the law if they felt it was worthy. In such a framework punishments cannot be so extreme that you would never consider breaking the law. IMO the dismay at this idea is coming from those who consider law as part of morality, in which case, it may be immoral to even develop a calculus for ignoring morality when the material returns are good enough.
fmajid 5y ago
Continued violation would lead to repeated (and possibly escalating) fines. This one was nowhere near 4% of revenues that is the upper limit, and specially for a company like Amazon 4% of revenues would be incredibly high.