5 ms·

Devil's advocate: Private firms shouldn't be in the business of evaluating the harm they cause to society. We the people, and the enforcement arm of the people,

Devil's advocate: Private firms shouldn't be in the business of evaluating the harm they cause to society. We the people, and the enforcement arm of the people, the government, should pass legislation and enforce laws to prevent such harms. If the people, i.e. the government, is unwilling to perform this basic function, private firms shouldn't feel obligated to take the mantle of responsibility.

pastacacioepepe 4y ago
> the government, is unwilling to perform this basic function Which usually happens due to lobbying by said private firms
nathanyz 4y ago
I agree, that business is like a game, and it is up to the government to set the rules of that game. If profit is winning, then any large enough business will do anything within the bounds of those rules in order to increase profit. You wouldn't ask basketball team to stop taking advantage of whatever edge they can to win would you?
- progman32 4y ago
  The issue here is the players are making the rules.
- triceratops 4y ago
  In this game the players influence referee appointments.
bhhaskin 4y ago
I would say there should be checks and balances. Of course companies should be looking at what is harmful or not, but they should't be the only ones. It's all about checks and balances.
lisper 4y ago
That sounds great in theory but there is a major problem: in the U.S. at least, corporations are political actors. So you can't fob off responsibility from corporations onto "the people". In the U.S., corporations literally are the people.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
> Private firms shouldn't be in the business of evaluating the harm they cause to society Private firms have been evaluating the harm they cause since tobacco. They need to know precisely what they need to cover up under the guise of discovering societal dangers for social good.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Nah. Tobacco companies didn't give a shit about societal dangers. They were trying to deflect liability, which is a business decision. It's a business decision that they're forced to make because we have laws about liability and don't rely on the generosity of CEOs.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    I literally said that private companies have been using studies to deflect liability under the guise of social good.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tedivm 4y ago
Private firms and businesses are run by people. What you're essentially saying is that people should not care about how their actions harm society as long as it makes them a profit. "If society didn't want me to kill all of those people why didn't they stop me?" is not really a good look. Abdicating all of your personal responsibility to "society" is just an excuse to be a sociopath.
whakim 4y ago
If private firms are only beholden to the profits of their shareholders (i.e., the way modern capitalism is mostly structured), I agree with you and I think that's what we're seeing here: Facebook dissolving this team because they believe the costs (to them) outweigh the benefits (to them). That being said, I think this entire structure is arguable: why are private firms only beholden to shareholders when they're built on the back of public resources: infrastructure, education, talent, laws, knowledge, etc.
AlbertCory 4y ago
You are right, but for a different reason than you think: Whenever there's a lawsuit against Meta, the plaintiff can do discovery and demand all this stuff. So the only defense is not to have it. "Meta top management was made aware of all these harms, but did nothing about them." -- that's not what their lawyers want to hear.
- foobarian 4y ago
  I wonder if that team got created for PR purposes during those privacy debacles a bunch of years ago. Bonus benefit from disbanding the team now: if more shit happens, can re-create the team as a show of action without actually changing anything.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    I like the way you think. You'll go far in top management.
usrusr 4y ago
The first parts are certainly true, but private firms certainly did not "feel obligated to take" that mantle: they saw a chance to grab it and run. Meta dissolving that team can mean two things, either that they lost hope to get away with it, or that they are confident that they will get away with anything, without even pretending.
forgetfreeman 4y ago
I feel like this stance ignores regulatory capture as a concept. In any activity at the scale of individual humans it is generally considered inappropriate to adopt an attitude of "I'ma do tf I feel until someone tells me I'm fucking up". Why should activities at the scale of private firms differ?
- jhgb 4y ago
  Wait, so the response to regulatory capture by companies should be...regulation by companies? Like, just removing the middleman?
  - forgetfreeman 4y ago
    Never said that, but since we've apparently landed at "people are complete sociopaths and absolutely must be forced to act in ways that aren't overtly harmful" what, specifically, are your recommendations? Because from where I'm sitting that sounds an awful lot like ironclad reasoning to eliminate profit motive from society.
    - jhgb 4y ago
      I'm not recommending anything. I'm just saying that "we shouldn't rely on companies for regulation of their behavior" is not an opinion easily countered by "but we need to, just in case of regulatory capture", because it's putting the cart before the horse.
      - forgetfreeman 4y ago
        Still isn't what I said. but since we're doing another lap through available options are 1. do nothing 2. government regulation <insert sovereign individual screeching here> 3. corporate self-regulation (because that's always successful /s) 4. Eliminate all incentives for unethical behavior.
culi 4y ago
Corporations have outsized influence on our government. While the working class is too busy working, these corporations are able to hire full-time lobbyists whose entire full-time job is to advocate for them. Though we definitely still have miles to go to limit the influence of corporations on gov't (and even public opinion by limiting media centralization and funding independent media), I doubt we'll ever be able to fully limit their influence.
rewgs 4y ago
This is woefully unrealistic.
hackerlight 4y ago
> If the people, i.e. the government Well that's one issue. The government only weakly equals the people, because of the electoral college disenfranchising voters in NY and CA, lack of ranked choice voting, Black voter disenfranchisement, lack of statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, and the corporatocracy system of influence. > If the people are unwilling to perform this basic function, private firms shouldn't feel obligated to take the mantle of responsibility. Sounds made up.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > Sounds made up. What sounds made up? Also, related to nothing, why have a bunch of people on the internet started replying to everything over the past few weeks with "sounds made up"?
tasty_freeze 4y ago
Imagine there is a manufacturing plant and they have a waste stream of highly toxic chemicals. The cheapest solution is to pump it into the ground, and if in a decade or two later, those chemicals make their way into the water table it is someone else's problem. For now, management has succeeded in producing higher profits. That scenario has happened in hundreds of sites around the US, including in Silicon Valley, and billions have been spent by the government to clean it up (imperfectly). Under your proposal, we the people and the laws would need to anticipate any harm a company might do, otherwise they are off the hook. Sure, there are laws now against semiconductor companies pushing their chemicals into the ground water, but what future chemical might be in use that isn't named in some law currently? A second point is that of regulatory capture. If a company can spend $100M lobbying politicians, courting regulators, spending on PR to sway public opinion to believe false things, and as a result earn $1B in extra profits, that would be AOK under your plan. Every time someone trots out the false claim that it is a CEOs legal responsibility to maximize profits, I have to wonder about their ethical framework, as if maximizing profits is an inherent good.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > Every time someone trots out the false claim that it is a CEOs legal responsibility to maximize profits, I have to wonder about their ethical framework, as if maximizing profits is an inherent good. The problem is that you're talking about how good people are, when other people are talking about how well things work, and about figuring out how to make them work better. Your ethical framework seems to be that people should be good and do good things, but with no reference to what things are good and what things aren't other than the intuition and improvisation of good people, and no reference to what we do if they don't do what we think are good things. If you're relying on the CEO to be a good person, you've dismissed governance as a possibility and anointed kings. In general, I don't think that kings work in my best interest, so I prefer regulations.
  - tasty_freeze 4y ago
    I'm not saying that we should only rely on CEOs to do the right thing. We absolutely still need regulation, and mechanisms for fighting regulatory capture. But the original claim was that companies have no responsibility towards ethical behavior; I'm saying we need to strengthen the moral responsibility of CEOs, not weaken it. Sure, it isn't perfect, but it's better than "CEOs are right to do whatever they can get away with."

pastacacioepepe 4y ago

> the government, is unwilling to perform this basic function Which usually happens due to lobbying by said private firms

nathanyz 4y ago

I agree, that business is like a game, and it is up to the government to set the rules of that game. If profit is winning, then any large enough business will do anything within the bounds of those rules in order to increase profit. You wouldn't ask basketball team to stop taking advantage of whatever edge they can to win would you?

progman32 4y ago
The issue here is the players are making the rules.
triceratops 4y ago
In this game the players influence referee appointments.

bhhaskin 4y ago

I would say there should be checks and balances. Of course companies should be looking at what is harmful or not, but they should't be the only ones. It's all about checks and balances.

lisper 4y ago

That sounds great in theory but there is a major problem: in the U.S. at least, corporations are political actors. So you can't fob off responsibility from corporations onto "the people". In the U.S., corporations literally are the people.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

> Private firms shouldn't be in the business of evaluating the harm they cause to society Private firms have been evaluating the harm they cause since tobacco. They need to know precisely what they need to cover up under the guise of discovering societal dangers for social good.

pessimizer 4y ago
Nah. Tobacco companies didn't give a shit about societal dangers. They were trying to deflect liability, which is a business decision. It's a business decision that they're forced to make because we have laws about liability and don't rely on the generosity of CEOs.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  I literally said that private companies have been using studies to deflect liability under the guise of social good.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tedivm 4y ago

Private firms and businesses are run by people. What you're essentially saying is that people should not care about how their actions harm society as long as it makes them a profit. "If society didn't want me to kill all of those people why didn't they stop me?" is not really a good look. Abdicating all of your personal responsibility to "society" is just an excuse to be a sociopath.

whakim 4y ago

If private firms are only beholden to the profits of their shareholders (i.e., the way modern capitalism is mostly structured), I agree with you and I think that's what we're seeing here: Facebook dissolving this team because they believe the costs (to them) outweigh the benefits (to them). That being said, I think this entire structure is arguable: why are private firms only beholden to shareholders when they're built on the back of public resources: infrastructure, education, talent, laws, knowledge, etc.

AlbertCory 4y ago

You are right, but for a different reason than you think: Whenever there's a lawsuit against Meta, the plaintiff can do discovery and demand all this stuff. So the only defense is not to have it. "Meta top management was made aware of all these harms, but did nothing about them." -- that's not what their lawyers want to hear.

foobarian 4y ago
I wonder if that team got created for PR purposes during those privacy debacles a bunch of years ago. Bonus benefit from disbanding the team now: if more shit happens, can re-create the team as a show of action without actually changing anything.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  I like the way you think. You'll go far in top management.

usrusr 4y ago

The first parts are certainly true, but private firms certainly did not "feel obligated to take" that mantle: they saw a chance to grab it and run. Meta dissolving that team can mean two things, either that they lost hope to get away with it, or that they are confident that they will get away with anything, without even pretending.

forgetfreeman 4y ago

I feel like this stance ignores regulatory capture as a concept. In any activity at the scale of individual humans it is generally considered inappropriate to adopt an attitude of "I'ma do tf I feel until someone tells me I'm fucking up". Why should activities at the scale of private firms differ?

jhgb 4y ago
Wait, so the response to regulatory capture by companies should be...regulation by companies? Like, just removing the middleman?
- forgetfreeman 4y ago
  Never said that, but since we've apparently landed at "people are complete sociopaths and absolutely must be forced to act in ways that aren't overtly harmful" what, specifically, are your recommendations? Because from where I'm sitting that sounds an awful lot like ironclad reasoning to eliminate profit motive from society.
  - jhgb 4y ago
    I'm not recommending anything. I'm just saying that "we shouldn't rely on companies for regulation of their behavior" is not an opinion easily countered by "but we need to, just in case of regulatory capture", because it's putting the cart before the horse.
    - forgetfreeman 4y ago
      Still isn't what I said. but since we're doing another lap through available options are 1. do nothing 2. government regulation <insert sovereign individual screeching here> 3. corporate self-regulation (because that's always successful /s) 4. Eliminate all incentives for unethical behavior.

culi 4y ago

Corporations have outsized influence on our government. While the working class is too busy working, these corporations are able to hire full-time lobbyists whose entire full-time job is to advocate for them. Though we definitely still have miles to go to limit the influence of corporations on gov't (and even public opinion by limiting media centralization and funding independent media), I doubt we'll ever be able to fully limit their influence.

rewgs 4y ago

This is woefully unrealistic.

hackerlight 4y ago

> If the people, i.e. the government Well that's one issue. The government only weakly equals the people, because of the electoral college disenfranchising voters in NY and CA, lack of ranked choice voting, Black voter disenfranchisement, lack of statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, and the corporatocracy system of influence. > If the people are unwilling to perform this basic function, private firms shouldn't feel obligated to take the mantle of responsibility. Sounds made up.

pessimizer 4y ago
> Sounds made up. What sounds made up? Also, related to nothing, why have a bunch of people on the internet started replying to everything over the past few weeks with "sounds made up"?

tasty_freeze 4y ago

Imagine there is a manufacturing plant and they have a waste stream of highly toxic chemicals. The cheapest solution is to pump it into the ground, and if in a decade or two later, those chemicals make their way into the water table it is someone else's problem. For now, management has succeeded in producing higher profits. That scenario has happened in hundreds of sites around the US, including in Silicon Valley, and billions have been spent by the government to clean it up (imperfectly). Under your proposal, we the people and the laws would need to anticipate any harm a company might do, otherwise they are off the hook. Sure, there are laws now against semiconductor companies pushing their chemicals into the ground water, but what future chemical might be in use that isn't named in some law currently? A second point is that of regulatory capture. If a company can spend $100M lobbying politicians, courting regulators, spending on PR to sway public opinion to believe false things, and as a result earn $1B in extra profits, that would be AOK under your plan. Every time someone trots out the false claim that it is a CEOs legal responsibility to maximize profits, I have to wonder about their ethical framework, as if maximizing profits is an inherent good.

pessimizer 4y ago
> Every time someone trots out the false claim that it is a CEOs legal responsibility to maximize profits, I have to wonder about their ethical framework, as if maximizing profits is an inherent good. The problem is that you're talking about how good people are, when other people are talking about how well things work, and about figuring out how to make them work better. Your ethical framework seems to be that people should be good and do good things, but with no reference to what things are good and what things aren't other than the intuition and improvisation of good people, and no reference to what we do if they don't do what we think are good things. If you're relying on the CEO to be a good person, you've dismissed governance as a possibility and anointed kings. In general, I don't think that kings work in my best interest, so I prefer regulations.
- tasty_freeze 4y ago
  I'm not saying that we should only rely on CEOs to do the right thing. We absolutely still need regulation, and mechanisms for fighting regulatory capture. But the original claim was that companies have no responsibility towards ethical behavior; I'm saying we need to strengthen the moral responsibility of CEOs, not weaken it. Sure, it isn't perfect, but it's better than "CEOs are right to do whatever they can get away with."