4 ms·

I wonder if the behavior of the largest tech companies is a cause or an effect of their size. Is unethical behavior pushing companies to the top of the food ch

I wonder if the behavior of the largest tech companies is a cause or an effect of their size. Is unethical behavior pushing companies to the top of the food chain? Or is it that other companies feel more ethical simply because they don't have as many chances to engage in unethical behavior? If it's the latter, all the push to split the companies is for nothing and we should just consider "ethics at scale" to be an unsolved problem I guess.

bsenftner 5y ago
Humans don't scale: we get big egos, we exploit size advantages far in excess of ethics, and we believe our own PR. Humans do not scale. We need to philosophically admit that with greater influence only fictional heroes can remain ethically honest. Self deception typically ruins a wealthy person's honesty; it is natural human nature. Until we recognize this innate fact of human nature, we will continually create large disasters, over and over again.
wetmore 5y ago
Perhaps when they are large enough to have significant power, they attract more employees with looser morals who see them as places where they can profit.
bawolff 5y ago
I suspect its less size then being at or near the top. If you're up and coming, the best strategy is to just make a better product. You know whose at the top and you can adapt your product to where they are weak. If you're at the top, i suspect the optimal strategy is to try and cut your competition off at the knees before its a threat. I think we see this across many things. Just look at all the messed up things states do when they're super powers vs middle power states.
- gonzo41 5y ago
  It's cartel behavior, they are trying to control every facet of the environments they live in. Hence why there are no competitors and all the upcoming platforms get acquired and absorbed.
prox 5y ago
It’s partly the Peter Principle, and another issue is maybe Google buying “management talent” from other companies. Just a guess though. Perhaps at that scale you have to be cut throat to be noticed and rise in the ranks (as it displays authority, which some people are especially fawned by)
ttiurani 5y ago
It's about shareholder value added. A public company or a VC-backed private company can focus on making creative nice widgets and services for only a limited time before growth inevitably stalls. After that (unless the management can and wants to screw over their owners) they will need to look elsewhere for more profits.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  It's about capitalism, which rots the spirit of everything it touches. Money is the most dangerous behaviour-altering drug. It shouldn't be a surprise that a system which rewards sociopathy and discourages kindness and empathy keeps generating sociopathic behaviours.
  - zo1 5y ago
    Capitalism has always been about greed, and I say that as a profound advocate of it. Its very convenient to blame capitalism now for stuff we don't like when I'd argue we knew all along about greed being a core part of capitalism. Convenient in that it somehow absolves government out of it, and hides how we as the supposed democratic participants have been utterly powerless to direct the state towards reigning in these supposedly greedy/evil capitalist companies.
    - mechanical_bear 5y ago
      Greed is good.
  - falcor84 5y ago
    I don't quite get why capitalism would reward sociopathy more than any other system in history
    - kelseyfrog 5y ago
      Your ethics are my opportunity.
    - 5y ago
akomtu 5y ago
Criminal business is the most profitable business and "unethical" just means "white collar crime". If the law allowed drug trafficking and kidnappings, the biggest corp in the US would be a drug cartel and the only reason they are outlawed is because even people at the top agree that such cartels are bad. Things are different for white collar crime: most people believe that its OK to do shady things if nobody's obviously hurt. This is why senators brazengly trade stocks influenced by the laws they pass. They don't believe its a crime. So unsurprisingly, the biggest corps in the US exploit this weakness at scale. It may take centuries before the collective agreement will equate such business practices with drug cartels.
- bostik 5y ago
  > If the law allowed drug trafficking and kidnappings, the biggest corp [anywhere] would be ... History proves you right. The entire British empire, a fabulously wealthy system, was founded on slave trade (think: kidnapping, trafficking) and when that became too risky to maintain either the trade or profit margins, they moved over to global drug trade. The opium wars.
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    this has a few diagrams https://historyindoors.co.uk/britains-dark-past-the-atrocities-of-the-british-empire-and-its-legacy-today/ https://historyindoors.co.uk/britains-dark-past-the-atrociti... some are telling
- Cederfjard 5y ago
  > the biggest corp in the US would be a drug cartel This is besides the point you’re making, but I disagree with this. Disregarding the ones who make drugs for medical use, we already have recreational drug companies operating legally, namely those selling alcohol and tobacco (and coffee I guess). They are not the biggest corporations in the US (although some are still huge and powerful, of course). The reason it’s currently so insanely profitable dealing in some of the other drugs is their prohibition, which makes prices skyrocket (and of course, when you’re already on the wrong side of the law, you might as well cut corners and utilize harmful practices to the extreme, even further increasing the profits).
csee 5y ago
I think it's just that there's more scrutiny and the cases we hear about are more in the news. Smaller companies, and especially individuals who run businesses, do plenty of dodgy crap that nobody hears about and it never makes the news.
nabajour 5y ago
It might be both, some sort of feedback loop. My take on this is that in a small company, the individual with his morals and values can still have an impact on the behaviour of a company. Above a certain size, when the company is public, the individual has less impact on the company, and there is an emergent behaviour that is only driven by the incentive to "enhance shareholder value", and all moral values that the company could follow, and that come from individuals in the company, disappears. A company's social role is to provide jobs and goods for the society to work well. But this is not aligned with the survival incentive of the company, to "enhance shareholder value", which becomes it's only role.

bsenftner 5y ago

Humans don't scale: we get big egos, we exploit size advantages far in excess of ethics, and we believe our own PR. Humans do not scale. We need to philosophically admit that with greater influence only fictional heroes can remain ethically honest. Self deception typically ruins a wealthy person's honesty; it is natural human nature. Until we recognize this innate fact of human nature, we will continually create large disasters, over and over again.

wetmore 5y ago

Perhaps when they are large enough to have significant power, they attract more employees with looser morals who see them as places where they can profit.

bawolff 5y ago

I suspect its less size then being at or near the top. If you're up and coming, the best strategy is to just make a better product. You know whose at the top and you can adapt your product to where they are weak. If you're at the top, i suspect the optimal strategy is to try and cut your competition off at the knees before its a threat. I think we see this across many things. Just look at all the messed up things states do when they're super powers vs middle power states.

gonzo41 5y ago
It's cartel behavior, they are trying to control every facet of the environments they live in. Hence why there are no competitors and all the upcoming platforms get acquired and absorbed.

prox 5y ago

It’s partly the Peter Principle, and another issue is maybe Google buying “management talent” from other companies. Just a guess though. Perhaps at that scale you have to be cut throat to be noticed and rise in the ranks (as it displays authority, which some people are especially fawned by)

ttiurani 5y ago

It's about shareholder value added. A public company or a VC-backed private company can focus on making creative nice widgets and services for only a limited time before growth inevitably stalls. After that (unless the management can and wants to screw over their owners) they will need to look elsewhere for more profits.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
It's about capitalism, which rots the spirit of everything it touches. Money is the most dangerous behaviour-altering drug. It shouldn't be a surprise that a system which rewards sociopathy and discourages kindness and empathy keeps generating sociopathic behaviours.
- zo1 5y ago
  Capitalism has always been about greed, and I say that as a profound advocate of it. Its very convenient to blame capitalism now for stuff we don't like when I'd argue we knew all along about greed being a core part of capitalism. Convenient in that it somehow absolves government out of it, and hides how we as the supposed democratic participants have been utterly powerless to direct the state towards reigning in these supposedly greedy/evil capitalist companies.
  - mechanical_bear 5y ago
    Greed is good.
- falcor84 5y ago
  I don't quite get why capitalism would reward sociopathy more than any other system in history
  - kelseyfrog 5y ago
    Your ethics are my opportunity.
  - 5y ago

akomtu 5y ago

Criminal business is the most profitable business and "unethical" just means "white collar crime". If the law allowed drug trafficking and kidnappings, the biggest corp in the US would be a drug cartel and the only reason they are outlawed is because even people at the top agree that such cartels are bad. Things are different for white collar crime: most people believe that its OK to do shady things if nobody's obviously hurt. This is why senators brazengly trade stocks influenced by the laws they pass. They don't believe its a crime. So unsurprisingly, the biggest corps in the US exploit this weakness at scale. It may take centuries before the collective agreement will equate such business practices with drug cartels.

bostik 5y ago
> If the law allowed drug trafficking and kidnappings, the biggest corp [anywhere] would be ... History proves you right. The entire British empire, a fabulously wealthy system, was founded on slave trade (think: kidnapping, trafficking) and when that became too risky to maintain either the trade or profit margins, they moved over to global drug trade. The opium wars.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  this has a few diagrams https://historyindoors.co.uk/britains-dark-past-the-atrocities-of-the-british-empire-and-its-legacy-today/ https://historyindoors.co.uk/britains-dark-past-the-atrociti... some are telling
Cederfjard 5y ago
> the biggest corp in the US would be a drug cartel This is besides the point you’re making, but I disagree with this. Disregarding the ones who make drugs for medical use, we already have recreational drug companies operating legally, namely those selling alcohol and tobacco (and coffee I guess). They are not the biggest corporations in the US (although some are still huge and powerful, of course). The reason it’s currently so insanely profitable dealing in some of the other drugs is their prohibition, which makes prices skyrocket (and of course, when you’re already on the wrong side of the law, you might as well cut corners and utilize harmful practices to the extreme, even further increasing the profits).

csee 5y ago

I think it's just that there's more scrutiny and the cases we hear about are more in the news. Smaller companies, and especially individuals who run businesses, do plenty of dodgy crap that nobody hears about and it never makes the news.

nabajour 5y ago

It might be both, some sort of feedback loop. My take on this is that in a small company, the individual with his morals and values can still have an impact on the behaviour of a company. Above a certain size, when the company is public, the individual has less impact on the company, and there is an emergent behaviour that is only driven by the incentive to "enhance shareholder value", and all moral values that the company could follow, and that come from individuals in the company, disappears. A company's social role is to provide jobs and goods for the society to work well. But this is not aligned with the survival incentive of the company, to "enhance shareholder value", which becomes it's only role.