4 ms·

Just about every company is doing something at some part of their business, which someone can tear into and say is immoral, unfair, unethical, or questionable i

Just about every company is doing something at some part of their business, which someone can tear into and say is immoral, unfair, unethical, or questionable in some shape or form. And it’s easy to go from an objective discussion to subjectivity. It’s like politics or you can even say it IS politics. Even the most innovative company that treats its workers fairly and compensates them “well” across the board is probably doing something somewhere that will put someone else out of work. I’m sort of ranting here, but I feel it’s very easy to go down this rabbit hole of complaining about X or Y or spreading negativity, and even on HN, we seem to spend quite a bit of time painting things in large brush strokes and labeling just about anything anyone is doing as being nefarious or having some ulterior motive. I can’t say this is really productive.

smt88 5y ago
The logical conclusion of your comment is that all companies are equally harmful (or that any attempt at distinguishing between them is pointless), which is blatantly untrue. There's is a huge difference in the harm created by someone working on, say, Jira vs. someone building interactive cigarette ads that subtly appeal to children. There are also lots of companies much more evil than most: Facebook is the most obvious example. There are companies that aren't particularly evil at all, like the ones working on carbon capture tech.
- ozzythecat 5y ago
  >There are companies that aren't particularly evil at all, like the ones working on carbon capture tech. Does a company's product or service determine whether they're evil or not evil? What if the carbon capture tech company builds something great for the environment, but has dependencies on a supplier that uses exploited labor in the developing world? What if that same carbon capture company has a "significant" wage gap between the average employee and the executive level? It's interesting you pointed out that Facebook is evil, but by default, a carbon capture company couldn't possibly be evil "at all". And that speaks to my point – your definition of evil is based on your set of beliefs, which I'll simply refer to as your politics. It's not necessarily "objective", no matter how hard you believe it is. >The logical conclusion of your comment is that all companies are equally harmful (or that any attempt at distinguishing between them is pointless), which is blatantly untrue. No, that's actually not what I'm saying at all.
  - smt88 5y ago
    > It's interesting you pointed out that Facebook is evil, but by default, a carbon capture company couldn't possibly be evil "at all". The key word I used was "particularly" -- meaning that it doesn't stand out among any evil things a company might do. Nothing in particular about its product is evil. It's essentially an air-cleaning company. > Does a company's product or service determine whether they're evil or not evil? Yes, of course. It isn't the only factor, but it is obviously a factor. > What if the carbon capture tech company builds something great for the environment, but has dependencies on a supplier that uses exploited labor in the developing world? What if that same carbon capture company has a "significant" wage gap between the average employee and the executive level? I think you're getting really stuck on the trivial, hypothetical example I gave. Any company in any industry can be evil. You are absolutely washing away all these shades of gray by saying this discussion isn't productive. All companies are a little bit evil, but there are distinctions that matter. And no one is trying to tell you or anyone else what morals to apply to companies. I'm only taking issue with you wasting the time to tell everyone else here that they're wasting their time. If you're so bogged down by the subjective issues here, fine! Lots of people are. Just move on and don't try to shut other people down.
    - ozzythecat 5y ago
      > I think you're getting really stuck on the trivial, hypothetical example I gave. Any company in any industry can be evil. You’re now whitewashing your previous comment instead of standing by it. :) The original topic is, “Are there any good companies anymore?” My response was that any company can be considered good or bad depending on what lens you use, and that applies equally to some of the most prestigious (or formerly prestigious) companies in the world just as it might to companies who aren’t household names. That is a valid response. >Lots of people are. Just move on and don't try to shut other people down. The irony is that you don’t like what I have to say, so you’re actively trying to shut me down. Censoring dissenting opinions because they don’t feed into the narrative you want. :)
- KmVFIz 5y ago
  It's *il*logical to conclude that because nowhere was it said that they are *equally* harmful. What you *can* conclude is that all companies are harmful in some aspect.
  - smt88 5y ago
    > I can’t say this is really productive. This is equivalent to saying, "All companies are evil; everything is subjective; let's just give up." It may not be what the commenter intended, but that's what comes across.
    - ozzythecat 5y ago
      > This is equivalent to saying, "All companies are evil; everything is subjective; let's just give up." That’s my comment you quoted, and I already flat out wrote that this isn’t what I’m saying. You might re-read what the original poster of this thread wrote, listing all the problems they see across a range of different industries and services. Since it’s not clear to you, and since you made a comment about actively trying to stop me from sharing my opinion because it “wastes peoples time”, I’ll try to explain again. Hopefully if you still disagree, you’ll just downvote me instead of continuing with your personal attacks at me. My point is that everyone has some set of values important to them. From a certain lens, you can find some fault or egregious (but perhaps legal) behavior in just about any large company. Corporations are complex. Even the best intentions result in some screw ups, or the leadership is well aware of an issue but does nothing because the bottom line is more important. Or maybe a certain issue coming to light may result in massive layoffs, etc etc. To say are there any good companies isn’t productive of a topic in itself. What are your values? Maybe you believe FB is evil because it’s leadership knew about the impact of its services on teens and their mental health. Or maybe you believe that FB simply offers a product, and as long as no immediate law is broken, parents and families should moderate their child’s access to social media.

smt88 5y ago

The logical conclusion of your comment is that all companies are equally harmful (or that any attempt at distinguishing between them is pointless), which is blatantly untrue. There's is a huge difference in the harm created by someone working on, say, Jira vs. someone building interactive cigarette ads that subtly appeal to children. There are also lots of companies much more evil than most: Facebook is the most obvious example. There are companies that aren't particularly evil at all, like the ones working on carbon capture tech.

ozzythecat 5y ago
>There are companies that aren't particularly evil at all, like the ones working on carbon capture tech. Does a company's product or service determine whether they're evil or not evil? What if the carbon capture tech company builds something great for the environment, but has dependencies on a supplier that uses exploited labor in the developing world? What if that same carbon capture company has a "significant" wage gap between the average employee and the executive level? It's interesting you pointed out that Facebook is evil, but by default, a carbon capture company couldn't possibly be evil "at all". And that speaks to my point – your definition of evil is based on your set of beliefs, which I'll simply refer to as your politics. It's not necessarily "objective", no matter how hard you believe it is. >The logical conclusion of your comment is that all companies are equally harmful (or that any attempt at distinguishing between them is pointless), which is blatantly untrue. No, that's actually not what I'm saying at all.
- smt88 5y ago
  > It's interesting you pointed out that Facebook is evil, but by default, a carbon capture company couldn't possibly be evil "at all". The key word I used was "particularly" -- meaning that it doesn't stand out among any evil things a company might do. Nothing in particular about its product is evil. It's essentially an air-cleaning company. > Does a company's product or service determine whether they're evil or not evil? Yes, of course. It isn't the only factor, but it is obviously a factor. > What if the carbon capture tech company builds something great for the environment, but has dependencies on a supplier that uses exploited labor in the developing world? What if that same carbon capture company has a "significant" wage gap between the average employee and the executive level? I think you're getting really stuck on the trivial, hypothetical example I gave. Any company in any industry can be evil. You are absolutely washing away all these shades of gray by saying this discussion isn't productive. All companies are a little bit evil, but there are distinctions that matter. And no one is trying to tell you or anyone else what morals to apply to companies. I'm only taking issue with you wasting the time to tell everyone else here that they're wasting their time. If you're so bogged down by the subjective issues here, fine! Lots of people are. Just move on and don't try to shut other people down.
  - ozzythecat 5y ago
    > I think you're getting really stuck on the trivial, hypothetical example I gave. Any company in any industry can be evil. You’re now whitewashing your previous comment instead of standing by it. :) The original topic is, “Are there any good companies anymore?” My response was that any company can be considered good or bad depending on what lens you use, and that applies equally to some of the most prestigious (or formerly prestigious) companies in the world just as it might to companies who aren’t household names. That is a valid response. >Lots of people are. Just move on and don't try to shut other people down. The irony is that you don’t like what I have to say, so you’re actively trying to shut me down. Censoring dissenting opinions because they don’t feed into the narrative you want. :)
KmVFIz 5y ago
It's *il*logical to conclude that because nowhere was it said that they are *equally* harmful. What you *can* conclude is that all companies are harmful in some aspect.
- smt88 5y ago
  > I can’t say this is really productive. This is equivalent to saying, "All companies are evil; everything is subjective; let's just give up." It may not be what the commenter intended, but that's what comes across.
  - ozzythecat 5y ago
    > This is equivalent to saying, "All companies are evil; everything is subjective; let's just give up." That’s my comment you quoted, and I already flat out wrote that this isn’t what I’m saying. You might re-read what the original poster of this thread wrote, listing all the problems they see across a range of different industries and services. Since it’s not clear to you, and since you made a comment about actively trying to stop me from sharing my opinion because it “wastes peoples time”, I’ll try to explain again. Hopefully if you still disagree, you’ll just downvote me instead of continuing with your personal attacks at me. My point is that everyone has some set of values important to them. From a certain lens, you can find some fault or egregious (but perhaps legal) behavior in just about any large company. Corporations are complex. Even the best intentions result in some screw ups, or the leadership is well aware of an issue but does nothing because the bottom line is more important. Or maybe a certain issue coming to light may result in massive layoffs, etc etc. To say are there any good companies isn’t productive of a topic in itself. What are your values? Maybe you believe FB is evil because it’s leadership knew about the impact of its services on teens and their mental health. Or maybe you believe that FB simply offers a product, and as long as no immediate law is broken, parents and families should moderate their child’s access to social media.