21 ms·

Sure, I also know people who have huge problems with their Google business listing. Nevertheless it is normal for a company to call its users to aid against go

Sure, I also know people who have huge problems with their Google business listing. Nevertheless it is normal for a company to call its users to aid against government regulation that would harm the product. What other course of action would you propose for a company? Just give up and donate their business to the communist party? If most users are unhappy with the product, it just means they will be unlikely to follow the call for action, which makes it even less of an issue to worry about. What makes the article even more ridiculous, however, is calling on the statements by Yelp as witness for the evilness of Google. Yelp is actually known for shady business practices (asking for bribes to have bad reviews removed).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
beaconstudios 5y ago
> What other course of action would you propose for a company? Just give up and donate their business to the communist party? just because businesses fight regulation, doesn't mean they're morally in the right. Car companies fought seatbelt regulation for years. They also convinced their users/drivers that this was operating in their best interests and tried to get them on-side to fight said regulation.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  "ust because businesses fight regulation, doesn't mean they're morally in the right." True, but they are also not automatically not morally in the right. The article cites "they oppose government regulation" as proof that they are evil, which is nonsense. There are many evil governments in the world, which to oppose would be the morally right thing to do. And many proposed legislations in the US are evil, too.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    true, but regulations are primarily bad when corporations capture their regulators and use them to shut out competition. Which is once again the corporations doing something immoral. There's a whole issue with ineffective or overreaching regulations too, but that's bog standard incompetence rather than malice. Could you give an example of a regulation in the US that is straightforwardly evil? Generally speaking when I think of evils propagated by government I think of wars/colonialism, oppressive social policies and benefitting businesses at the cost of citizens' wellbeing. The US does all of these in varying degrees but I'm curious as to how the US is actually oppressing its corporations; from my perspective, the US seems like the most corporation-friendly country on the planet.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      Well this could be an endless discussion, but in my opinion all legislations that moves society towards socialism is fundamentally evil. I'm sure there are more specific examples to find, but to me, that overarching principle suffices. People are used to the leftist way of thinking about "us vs them" and automatically think of corporations and "employers" as evil oppressors. I think the other way round. I think "workers" are just a social construct, and being able to start your own business is the very means to achieve freedom. So regulations destroying businesses are enemies of freedom and hence evil. For example my motivation to run my own business may be that I want to work the way I want. Now regulators perhaps give unions the right to determine how I am supposed to work. That's completely fucked up. The correct response to bad working conditions is for employees to quit and change jobs. If no good jobs exist, they should start their own business. People who crave socialist structures are free to start businesses with socialist structures. The correct way for governments to help out workers is therefore to facility opportunity and thriving economy that leads to more companies and hence more alternatives for being employed. Most legislation does the opposite of that. (another simple example: here in Europe we have to senselessly click on cookie banners thousands of times, because of a misguided regulation on cookies. Wasting people's energy like that is also evil. Worse, we will soon have upload filters, destroying freedom of speech for good, as "indie publishers" won't be able to afford the required infrastructure and legal teams).
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        OK, so you're a right-libertarian. In that case I suspect we won't agree, because I think capitalism has to be constrained or we'd be heading back towards Victorian working conditions. Not universally, but the most exploitative employers would surely love to strip some more workers' rights away. > People are used to the leftist way of thinking about "us vs them" and automatically think of corporations and "employers" as evil oppressors. Eh, a lot do, but I don't. Capitalism is a system that encourages becoming a capitalist, and rewards greater sociopathy in being a capitalist. That means that some people like Jeff Bezos are pretty obviously exploitative, but the problem is the system that incentivises such behaviour, not that people with low moral standards are capable of following incentive models to their inevitable conclusions. > I think "workers" are just a social construct If you mean that wage labour is a social construct, then yes - under capitalism. "Workers" are people who perform labour, and is not a social construct. If you start a freelance business, you are both a worker and a capitalist; that's what being self-employed is. > Now regulators perhaps give unions the right to determine how I am supposed to work. That's completely fucked up. Unions represent your workers, so it's not the regulators negotiating how you work, it's the people who actually do that work. > The correct response to bad working conditions is for employees to quit and change jobs. If that worked, then companies with bad working conditions would be shutting down from lack of workforce. This isn't happening systemically, so clearly this approach does not work. Amazon is one of the biggest companies on the planet and it's been well-documented how badly their workers are exploited. > here in Europe we have to senselessly click on cookie banners thousands of times, because of a misguided regulation on cookies. I agree that this regulation is pretty stupid, and would've been better implemented as a legally-required setting in your browser. Do-Not-Track with teeth, essentially. > Worse, we will soon have upload filters, destroying freedom of speech for good, as "indie publishers" won't be able to afford the required infrastructure and legal teams This is done for the protection of copyright, no? I thought you would be in agreement with this, as it benefits corporations.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

beaconstudios 5y ago

> What other course of action would you propose for a company? Just give up and donate their business to the communist party? just because businesses fight regulation, doesn't mean they're morally in the right. Car companies fought seatbelt regulation for years. They also convinced their users/drivers that this was operating in their best interests and tried to get them on-side to fight said regulation.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
"ust because businesses fight regulation, doesn't mean they're morally in the right." True, but they are also not automatically not morally in the right. The article cites "they oppose government regulation" as proof that they are evil, which is nonsense. There are many evil governments in the world, which to oppose would be the morally right thing to do. And many proposed legislations in the US are evil, too.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  true, but regulations are primarily bad when corporations capture their regulators and use them to shut out competition. Which is once again the corporations doing something immoral. There's a whole issue with ineffective or overreaching regulations too, but that's bog standard incompetence rather than malice. Could you give an example of a regulation in the US that is straightforwardly evil? Generally speaking when I think of evils propagated by government I think of wars/colonialism, oppressive social policies and benefitting businesses at the cost of citizens' wellbeing. The US does all of these in varying degrees but I'm curious as to how the US is actually oppressing its corporations; from my perspective, the US seems like the most corporation-friendly country on the planet.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    Well this could be an endless discussion, but in my opinion all legislations that moves society towards socialism is fundamentally evil. I'm sure there are more specific examples to find, but to me, that overarching principle suffices. People are used to the leftist way of thinking about "us vs them" and automatically think of corporations and "employers" as evil oppressors. I think the other way round. I think "workers" are just a social construct, and being able to start your own business is the very means to achieve freedom. So regulations destroying businesses are enemies of freedom and hence evil. For example my motivation to run my own business may be that I want to work the way I want. Now regulators perhaps give unions the right to determine how I am supposed to work. That's completely fucked up. The correct response to bad working conditions is for employees to quit and change jobs. If no good jobs exist, they should start their own business. People who crave socialist structures are free to start businesses with socialist structures. The correct way for governments to help out workers is therefore to facility opportunity and thriving economy that leads to more companies and hence more alternatives for being employed. Most legislation does the opposite of that. (another simple example: here in Europe we have to senselessly click on cookie banners thousands of times, because of a misguided regulation on cookies. Wasting people's energy like that is also evil. Worse, we will soon have upload filters, destroying freedom of speech for good, as "indie publishers" won't be able to afford the required infrastructure and legal teams).
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      OK, so you're a right-libertarian. In that case I suspect we won't agree, because I think capitalism has to be constrained or we'd be heading back towards Victorian working conditions. Not universally, but the most exploitative employers would surely love to strip some more workers' rights away. > People are used to the leftist way of thinking about "us vs them" and automatically think of corporations and "employers" as evil oppressors. Eh, a lot do, but I don't. Capitalism is a system that encourages becoming a capitalist, and rewards greater sociopathy in being a capitalist. That means that some people like Jeff Bezos are pretty obviously exploitative, but the problem is the system that incentivises such behaviour, not that people with low moral standards are capable of following incentive models to their inevitable conclusions. > I think "workers" are just a social construct If you mean that wage labour is a social construct, then yes - under capitalism. "Workers" are people who perform labour, and is not a social construct. If you start a freelance business, you are both a worker and a capitalist; that's what being self-employed is. > Now regulators perhaps give unions the right to determine how I am supposed to work. That's completely fucked up. Unions represent your workers, so it's not the regulators negotiating how you work, it's the people who actually do that work. > The correct response to bad working conditions is for employees to quit and change jobs. If that worked, then companies with bad working conditions would be shutting down from lack of workforce. This isn't happening systemically, so clearly this approach does not work. Amazon is one of the biggest companies on the planet and it's been well-documented how badly their workers are exploited. > here in Europe we have to senselessly click on cookie banners thousands of times, because of a misguided regulation on cookies. I agree that this regulation is pretty stupid, and would've been better implemented as a legally-required setting in your browser. Do-Not-Track with teeth, essentially. > Worse, we will soon have upload filters, destroying freedom of speech for good, as "indie publishers" won't be able to afford the required infrastructure and legal teams This is done for the protection of copyright, no? I thought you would be in agreement with this, as it benefits corporations.