3 ms·

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.

by 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?

by akudha 5y ago

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?