4 ms·

I'm not going to comment on the subject matter of this article, rather I think it's worth pointing out that we need more articles like this, investigating corru

I'm not going to comment on the subject matter of this article, rather I think it's worth pointing out that we need more articles like this, investigating corrupt, shadowy organizations that are ripping off innocent people. In fact, it would be nice if our journalists looked into some American corporations the way the Economist investigated Queensway. Kudos to the Economist for doing reporting the way it should be done. Let's hope they continue pursuing this. This is journalism the way it should be done.

335555555GET 15y ago
Why?
- tryitnow 15y ago
  Because it is shedding light on powerful corrupt elites and goes into some detail (given the brevity of the article), without going into wild-eyed conspiracy theories or making half-assed assertions just for the sake of bashing a profit-making corporation. This sort of transparency is important to a functioning free market economy, especially in resource-rich, socioeconomically underdeveloped economies. Many of these countries don't have a well-developed press to shine the light on the corrupt practices of their government, so it's important and socially useful for the international press to pick up the slack and expose local corruption.
- raganwald 15y ago
  At some basic level you have to decide whether free flow of information is morally desirable or not. It’s somewhat axiomatic, you can argue it’s a good thing for efficient markets, but that is actually circular reasoning as someone who prefers inefficient markets would argue against the free flow of information and in favour of information asymmetry. So I guess I’m saying that some people simply believe the world is a better place if there is more information going around, less secrecy, and fewer private deals between shsadowy figures. Many of those peole are also in favour of fewer restraints on people’s right to make choices. That seems to capture much of the place where the hackeer ethos overlaps with the startup culture: "Let people does at they like without patents and other restrictions, but give everyone the information they need to decide what to do for themselves effectively.” If I could sum it up in a phrase, I would borrow from Doctors: Informed Consent. To make an informed decision, you need to know the relevant facts and have a basic understanding of the likely actual outcomes that your chocies will create. Shadowy syndicates cutting deals with corrupt regimes do not create an environment of informed consent.
- rwmj 15y ago
  At a simpler level than the other replies, there's a utilitarian argument. There are far more people who lose out from this information inequality than who gain from it.

335555555GET 15y ago

Why?

tryitnow 15y ago
Because it is shedding light on powerful corrupt elites and goes into some detail (given the brevity of the article), without going into wild-eyed conspiracy theories or making half-assed assertions just for the sake of bashing a profit-making corporation. This sort of transparency is important to a functioning free market economy, especially in resource-rich, socioeconomically underdeveloped economies. Many of these countries don't have a well-developed press to shine the light on the corrupt practices of their government, so it's important and socially useful for the international press to pick up the slack and expose local corruption.
raganwald 15y ago
At some basic level you have to decide whether free flow of information is morally desirable or not. It’s somewhat axiomatic, you can argue it’s a good thing for efficient markets, but that is actually circular reasoning as someone who prefers inefficient markets would argue against the free flow of information and in favour of information asymmetry. So I guess I’m saying that some people simply believe the world is a better place if there is more information going around, less secrecy, and fewer private deals between shsadowy figures. Many of those peole are also in favour of fewer restraints on people’s right to make choices. That seems to capture much of the place where the hackeer ethos overlaps with the startup culture: "Let people does at they like without patents and other restrictions, but give everyone the information they need to decide what to do for themselves effectively.” If I could sum it up in a phrase, I would borrow from Doctors: Informed Consent. To make an informed decision, you need to know the relevant facts and have a basic understanding of the likely actual outcomes that your chocies will create. Shadowy syndicates cutting deals with corrupt regimes do not create an environment of informed consent.
rwmj 15y ago
At a simpler level than the other replies, there's a utilitarian argument. There are far more people who lose out from this information inequality than who gain from it.