5 ms·

That is the problem of following the absolute minimum standards in life - we (the society as a whole) have accepted that as long as businesses follow the law, i

by akudha 5y ago

That is the problem of following the absolute minimum standards in life - we (the society as a whole) have accepted that as long as businesses follow the law, its all good. We've accepted that the sole purpose of businesses is to make money within the bounds of the law. While this makes sense logically, it isn't good for anyone in the long run, practically. Also remember that all kinds of unfair laws can be passed, if you have enough money to buy politicians. We should strive for higher standards, but who am I kidding - we live in a world of "greed is good" mantra.

bilbo0s 5y ago
The problem is that without laws, what would those "standards" be? You have to do more than the law? But how does any business in the future know what that is? The great things about law are predictability and flexibility. If the law is not enough, we can change it. Then everyone is held to that new standard. But having a standard that is not laid out, is the same thing as having no standard at all. Going into an area where we say companies have to meet an unwritten ethical and/or moral standard is ripe for abuse. Under those conditions, if I show certain messages or ads on my website that are wholly unethical and immoral, but not necessarily illegal in the written law, I'm opening myself up to liability based on violating unstated ethics and morals.
- akudha 5y ago
  You seem to be misunderstanding what I was saying (or I wasn't clear). I am not at all saying we shouldn't have laws - we absolutely should have laws and rules. I am not saying that we should sue companies based on unstated ethics or morals (how would that even work anyway?). All I am saying is we should, as a society, have a better attitude and higher standards than stuff like greed is good, the sole purpose of a business is make profit, even at the expense of everything else etc etc. I fully understand this sounds idealistic and maybe it is dumb to expect people to do better, when much of humanity is trying to do the minimum and get the maximum in return.
  - cddotdot 5y ago
    Humanity isn't that selfish. It is idealistic but to even have the conversation to know why is minimally ethical. Taking the converse argument of 0 ethics except THE LAW is infuriatingly common. Is it okay to murder so long as the act of murder is technically legal? Assuming perfect proof intent with direct action indefensible confession murder. But also 100% legal. Breaking no law. Would society find that acceptable? Even for those that used the loop hole? It seems like folks want to live in a 0 common ethical baseline reality. We're discussing the middle and if Facebook is wrong. Not if they will get away with it. They will. And only because they get away with it does not make it right. Can we stop with the definition arguments of legality or the accountability of large corporations for a moment? Is knowingly proceeding with a damaging action acceptable? One could even argue social media isn't damaging. The study is wrong and Facebook paid for it. Not me. But at least it's not this manifest destiny morality bullshit.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      >It seems like folks want to live in a 0 common ethical baseline reality. We do live in a world zero common ethics except where these ethics pertain to the laws of physics. Anything else is determined by societal dictate by way of law or cultural fiat. If Facebook were in Saudi Arabia, there wouldn't a be a rainbow flag filter and accounts would be shadow banned for any mention of Khassogi's murder. So who gets to determine what is ethical?
Digory 5y ago
Scarcity exists. You cannot follow the maximum standards, because you only have so many resources. We can sort our 'recycling' and go through 'security theater' at the airport but those involve necessary trade-offs to real care for the environment or security. I don't mind when wealth and education allows us to voluntarily do better or more. But there's danger in punishing people using hindsight.
titzer 5y ago
> the sole purpose of businesses is to make money within the bounds of the law. It's worse than that. Businesses constantly make risk/reward/punishment tradeoffs and will flout the law according to their estimation of the risk of being caught and paying fines. There are precious few illegal behaviors that bubble up to criminal charges for executives, so the risk is quantifiable in dollar amounts.
mike00632 5y ago
There is another aspect about how new the industry is. It will be some time before we have well-considered laws about things like digital privacy. Tech companies can either advocate for good laws based on their advanced knowledge or be greedy and exploit/promote lackluster laws.
yupper32 5y ago
I think you're close to understanding why modern societies that aren't capitalistic always end up failing. Capitalism (with legal guardrails and social policies) works because it accepts that you can't fully stop greed.

by akudha 5y ago

bilbo0s 5y ago

The problem is that without laws, what would those "standards" be? You have to do more than the law? But how does any business in the future know what that is? The great things about law are predictability and flexibility. If the law is not enough, we can change it. Then everyone is held to that new standard. But having a standard that is not laid out, is the same thing as having no standard at all. Going into an area where we say companies have to meet an unwritten ethical and/or moral standard is ripe for abuse. Under those conditions, if I show certain messages or ads on my website that are wholly unethical and immoral, but not necessarily illegal in the written law, I'm opening myself up to liability based on violating unstated ethics and morals.

akudha 5y ago
You seem to be misunderstanding what I was saying (or I wasn't clear). I am not at all saying we shouldn't have laws - we absolutely should have laws and rules. I am not saying that we should sue companies based on unstated ethics or morals (how would that even work anyway?). All I am saying is we should, as a society, have a better attitude and higher standards than stuff like greed is good, the sole purpose of a business is make profit, even at the expense of everything else etc etc. I fully understand this sounds idealistic and maybe it is dumb to expect people to do better, when much of humanity is trying to do the minimum and get the maximum in return.
- cddotdot 5y ago
  Humanity isn't that selfish. It is idealistic but to even have the conversation to know why is minimally ethical. Taking the converse argument of 0 ethics except THE LAW is infuriatingly common. Is it okay to murder so long as the act of murder is technically legal? Assuming perfect proof intent with direct action indefensible confession murder. But also 100% legal. Breaking no law. Would society find that acceptable? Even for those that used the loop hole? It seems like folks want to live in a 0 common ethical baseline reality. We're discussing the middle and if Facebook is wrong. Not if they will get away with it. They will. And only because they get away with it does not make it right. Can we stop with the definition arguments of legality or the accountability of large corporations for a moment? Is knowingly proceeding with a damaging action acceptable? One could even argue social media isn't damaging. The study is wrong and Facebook paid for it. Not me. But at least it's not this manifest destiny morality bullshit.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    >It seems like folks want to live in a 0 common ethical baseline reality. We do live in a world zero common ethics except where these ethics pertain to the laws of physics. Anything else is determined by societal dictate by way of law or cultural fiat. If Facebook were in Saudi Arabia, there wouldn't a be a rainbow flag filter and accounts would be shadow banned for any mention of Khassogi's murder. So who gets to determine what is ethical?

Digory 5y ago

Scarcity exists. You cannot follow the maximum standards, because you only have so many resources. We can sort our 'recycling' and go through 'security theater' at the airport but those involve necessary trade-offs to real care for the environment or security. I don't mind when wealth and education allows us to voluntarily do better or more. But there's danger in punishing people using hindsight.

titzer 5y ago

> the sole purpose of businesses is to make money within the bounds of the law. It's worse than that. Businesses constantly make risk/reward/punishment tradeoffs and will flout the law according to their estimation of the risk of being caught and paying fines. There are precious few illegal behaviors that bubble up to criminal charges for executives, so the risk is quantifiable in dollar amounts.

mike00632 5y ago

There is another aspect about how new the industry is. It will be some time before we have well-considered laws about things like digital privacy. Tech companies can either advocate for good laws based on their advanced knowledge or be greedy and exploit/promote lackluster laws.

yupper32 5y ago

I think you're close to understanding why modern societies that aren't capitalistic always end up failing. Capitalism (with legal guardrails and social policies) works because it accepts that you can't fully stop greed.