3 ms·
This is a very company-centric Randian view, and ignores that the company is situated in a society and can have unintended negative impacts on that society that
by hackerlight 4y ago
This is a very company-centric Randian view, and ignores that the company is situated in a society and can have unintended negative impacts on that society that don't amount to technical law-breaking.
Of course these teams were bad for the bottom line, which is why Musk cut them. But the entire purpose was ESG goals. For example, preventing the platform from being used to incite genocide in non-English speaking countries. Preventing that has no impact on profitability, and costs money. But, I hope we'd agree that it's the right thing to do anyways?
- mamonster 4y agoI mean Musk has to cut something, makes sense that he would cut the stuff that doesn't affect the revenue first. There is absolutely nothing preventing him from hiring a new human rights team later on when he feels that it is needed. It sucks for employees but to be completely honest I find it so puzzling that people were caught unaware. Did they think that Twitter would avoid a restructuring at some point down the line, given how badly the stock performed? If not Elon it would be an actual P.E outfit doing the exact same thing.
- hackerlight 4y ago> I mean Musk has to cut something, makes sense that he would cut the stuff that doesn't affect the revenue first. It makes sense from the Randian perspective where external costs don't exist. It may not make sense if you're thinking more holistically and taking into account external costs.