3 ms·

What if it said: "change or block US and EU regulation/legislation that would impede growth for BigCo Marijuana Vape Pens"? See the difference? One is protecti

What if it said: "change or block US and EU regulation/legislation that would impede growth for BigCo Marijuana Vape Pens"? See the difference? One is protection for an industry, the other is a protection for a specific company.

HWR_14 5y ago
That's a horrible difference. You're talking about phrasing determining morals and ethics? I mean, do you condemn politicians who talk about helping a specific person with a policy to try to make it real? Obviously Amazon's lobbyists are trying to protect Amazon's interests. If you think Alexa should be regulated, you can think it's immoral. But I have no problem with Amazon identifying why they care. Unless you think that the lobbyists read that as "make sure there is an Alexa named exemption".
- Jensson 5y ago
  > You're talking about phrasing determining morals and ethics? The courts certainly do care about phrasing. You are taught to not say "we will destroy the opposition" at big companies so that they can avoid lawsuits, instead you say things along the lines of "we will provide the best user experience". Ultimately it is basically the same thing, but the second is safe in courts, the first will create a problem. Edit: Case example: Google said AMP was to "provide the best user experience". But it also helps Google "destroy the opposition". So why isn't there a court case over Google abusing their position? Because they didn't say the second part here, just repeated the first. Words do matter a lot.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    You're talking about phrasing producing evidence. I'm talking about phrasing in examining the problem. That is, no one believes that Google's AMP push was primarily about the best user experience. Just proving it in a court of law. What they call it is irrelevant to the moral question. Similarly, everyone knows that Amazon's lobbying is about protecting Alexa. I just don't think that's immoral. It's strange that you would call it a moral or ethical difference. Legally different, maybe (in other cases, this is obviously legal).
tqi 5y ago
I actually don't see the difference. In practice, the lobbyists would probably be advocating for the same policies (ie legalization). Why does the framing of the goal statement influence the morality of the actions?

HWR_14 5y ago

That's a horrible difference. You're talking about phrasing determining morals and ethics? I mean, do you condemn politicians who talk about helping a specific person with a policy to try to make it real? Obviously Amazon's lobbyists are trying to protect Amazon's interests. If you think Alexa should be regulated, you can think it's immoral. But I have no problem with Amazon identifying why they care. Unless you think that the lobbyists read that as "make sure there is an Alexa named exemption".

Jensson 5y ago
> You're talking about phrasing determining morals and ethics? The courts certainly do care about phrasing. You are taught to not say "we will destroy the opposition" at big companies so that they can avoid lawsuits, instead you say things along the lines of "we will provide the best user experience". Ultimately it is basically the same thing, but the second is safe in courts, the first will create a problem. Edit: Case example: Google said AMP was to "provide the best user experience". But it also helps Google "destroy the opposition". So why isn't there a court case over Google abusing their position? Because they didn't say the second part here, just repeated the first. Words do matter a lot.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  You're talking about phrasing producing evidence. I'm talking about phrasing in examining the problem. That is, no one believes that Google's AMP push was primarily about the best user experience. Just proving it in a court of law. What they call it is irrelevant to the moral question. Similarly, everyone knows that Amazon's lobbying is about protecting Alexa. I just don't think that's immoral. It's strange that you would call it a moral or ethical difference. Legally different, maybe (in other cases, this is obviously legal).

tqi 5y ago

I actually don't see the difference. In practice, the lobbyists would probably be advocating for the same policies (ie legalization). Why does the framing of the goal statement influence the morality of the actions?