6 ms·

Unless they are operating outside of the law, I don't fault "Big Tobacco" or any "Big Business" for, you know, operating a business. Yes, it's kind of funny the

Unless they are operating outside of the law, I don't fault "Big Tobacco" or any "Big Business" for, you know, operating a business. Yes, it's kind of funny they went from one way of exploiting our brains to another, and I personally wish they had not. But companies don't operate to satisfy our wishes, hopes and desires, they operate to make money. I've said it a million times, but if we don't like the way a company legally operates, the only solution is to change the laws the company operates under. Maybe the occasional boycott or shame campaign can force a corporation's hand, but the vast majority of the time when a company is forced to change the way they operate it is because a law was passed. EDIT: terrible typo that undermined my entire point

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
js8 3y ago
Maybe I misunderstand, but isn't your point "the only solution IS to change the laws"?
unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
This is not entirely accurate. Causing harm to people is not good. If you harm enough people egregiously enough, law enforcement eventually will notice and will figure which law said company broke. If the harm is bad enough, and intent obvious enough, they will find a law. So, it's more true to ask: "Is intentionally manipulating food to cause harm to people-- is this consistent with existing legal norms?" I personally would not bet on it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > intentionally manipulating food to cause harm to people I seriously doubt that this has ever been done. Companies "manipulate" food so it tastes good and they'll sell more of it. They don't intentionally do it to "cause harm". At most, that might be an unintended consequence. It turns out that intentionally killing your customers is bad for business. It's like (IIRC) Ozzy Osbourne's comment back in the days when metal was being blamed for teen suicides. "Why would we do that? That would tank sales for the followup album." Or Rob Halford on the same subject "If we were going to put backward-masked subliminal commands in our records, it wouldn't be 'kill yourself', it would be 'buy more of our records'" (probably not exact quotes in either case, but that was the gist)
egypturnash 3y ago
The problem with what you have said a million times is that by the time a company gets to the point where it is a major problem, it is also at the point where it has a lot of money going through it, and since corporations have absolutely no ethics, they are perfectly fine with spending a chunk of their profits on lobbying lawmakers to not change those laws. I fault "Big Business" for completely ignoring ethics and morals in favor of profit. I fault every CEO who has made these decisions, I fault every minor worker who has done what they were told to do regardless of any moral qualms. They have all decided that they do not give a shit about the harm they cause as long as they are making enough money.
- TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
  Then you ought blame society for seperating church and state, and substituting church with approximately nothing. If the state is amoral, it will swiftly be overrun my amorality.
  - polygamous_bat 3y ago
    Minus the very strong assumption that religion is only possible source of morality.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
      Go right ahead and ignore my second sentence.
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      And the assumption that religion is not only moral on average (what's questionable), but also able to stay moral while given extraordinary power (shown to be false every single time people tried).
      - gryfft 3y ago
        Ah, but "the problem with the world today is that everyone else doesn't believe what my religion teaches" has an enormous feature that your arguments do not: It gives the one who holds this belief the comfort that _they_ have done everything that can and everything they should; all that is left is to be publicly smug. This is much easier to do than engaging closely with complicated ideas, and crucially can never result in deciding that it's necessary to go through the pain of changing one's own behavior or beliefs.
avgcorrection 3y ago
It's true that the only solution is to change the law. > Unless they are operating outside of the law, I don't fault "Big Tobacco" or any "Big Business" for, you know, operating a business. Why this casual dismissal? Operating a business. Are those the magic no-harm-done-here words? I'm not even saying that being “mad” about it would have any effect. But I still will argue for my right to be mad... Businesses can also lobby the government to keep or change laws. Is that also to be with dismissed with the same attitude? Like, oh Big Tobacco lobbied against your candidate that would enact some kind of law that would put a wedge in their business plan? Well—you know—they're just operating a business. Lobbying is an investment, and clearly they made a calculation that said that lobbying would make them more money.
- digging 3y ago
  The puzzle piece that usually gets missed in these conversations is that a business is a public danger. It has to be, inherently, because as we see "just trying to make a profit" consistently does harm at a certain scale. Making a profit and doing public good are completely separate imperatives, and when push comes to shove prioritizing profit will reduce the ability to do public good. A business can be too small or too inefficient to do much harm, but we are doomed (literally) if we can't wrap our heads around the fact that all businesses are enemies of the public (literally). So often the conversation simply reaches a full stop at "businesses are just doing what they do" as if we have to accept that - as if making a profit is a good thing. Similarly, fire is a danger to the public. It consumes and destroys things. That doesn't mean we've sworn off fire - on the contrary, we use it to make new dangers (pollution, primarily). It's just that we have developed measures to contain fire. Without measures to contain profit-seeking behavior, humans can't coexist with businesses safely.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
    Your comment comes off as thinly veiled misanthropy. What are you really promoting here? Going back to freezing in the dark?
    - 3y ago
jancsika 3y ago
> Unless they are operating outside of the law, I don't fault "Big Tobacco" or any "Big Business" for, you know, operating a business. Aside from concerns about memory safety, I don't get the criticism of C as a systems language.
99_00 3y ago
Your post is a tautology because you define "wrong" as breaking the law. Yes, of course, if a company is not breaking the law they are not breaking the law. And if we want them to stop doing what they are doing we would benefit from making it illegal.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

js8 3y ago

Maybe I misunderstand, but isn't your point "the only solution IS to change the laws"?

unyttigfjelltol 3y ago

This is not entirely accurate. Causing harm to people is not good. If you harm enough people egregiously enough, law enforcement eventually will notice and will figure which law said company broke. If the harm is bad enough, and intent obvious enough, they will find a law. So, it's more true to ask: "Is intentionally manipulating food to cause harm to people-- is this consistent with existing legal norms?" I personally would not bet on it.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> intentionally manipulating food to cause harm to people I seriously doubt that this has ever been done. Companies "manipulate" food so it tastes good and they'll sell more of it. They don't intentionally do it to "cause harm". At most, that might be an unintended consequence. It turns out that intentionally killing your customers is bad for business. It's like (IIRC) Ozzy Osbourne's comment back in the days when metal was being blamed for teen suicides. "Why would we do that? That would tank sales for the followup album." Or Rob Halford on the same subject "If we were going to put backward-masked subliminal commands in our records, it wouldn't be 'kill yourself', it would be 'buy more of our records'" (probably not exact quotes in either case, but that was the gist)

egypturnash 3y ago

The problem with what you have said a million times is that by the time a company gets to the point where it is a major problem, it is also at the point where it has a lot of money going through it, and since corporations have absolutely no ethics, they are perfectly fine with spending a chunk of their profits on lobbying lawmakers to not change those laws. I fault "Big Business" for completely ignoring ethics and morals in favor of profit. I fault every CEO who has made these decisions, I fault every minor worker who has done what they were told to do regardless of any moral qualms. They have all decided that they do not give a shit about the harm they cause as long as they are making enough money.

TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
Then you ought blame society for seperating church and state, and substituting church with approximately nothing. If the state is amoral, it will swiftly be overrun my amorality.
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  Minus the very strong assumption that religion is only possible source of morality.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
    Go right ahead and ignore my second sentence.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    And the assumption that religion is not only moral on average (what's questionable), but also able to stay moral while given extraordinary power (shown to be false every single time people tried).
    - gryfft 3y ago
      Ah, but "the problem with the world today is that everyone else doesn't believe what my religion teaches" has an enormous feature that your arguments do not: It gives the one who holds this belief the comfort that _they_ have done everything that can and everything they should; all that is left is to be publicly smug. This is much easier to do than engaging closely with complicated ideas, and crucially can never result in deciding that it's necessary to go through the pain of changing one's own behavior or beliefs.

avgcorrection 3y ago

It's true that the only solution is to change the law. > Unless they are operating outside of the law, I don't fault "Big Tobacco" or any "Big Business" for, you know, operating a business. Why this casual dismissal? Operating a business. Are those the magic no-harm-done-here words? I'm not even saying that being “mad” about it would have any effect. But I still will argue for my right to be mad... Businesses can also lobby the government to keep or change laws. Is that also to be with dismissed with the same attitude? Like, oh Big Tobacco lobbied against your candidate that would enact some kind of law that would put a wedge in their business plan? Well—you know—they're just operating a business. Lobbying is an investment, and clearly they made a calculation that said that lobbying would make them more money.

digging 3y ago
The puzzle piece that usually gets missed in these conversations is that a business is a public danger. It has to be, inherently, because as we see "just trying to make a profit" consistently does harm at a certain scale. Making a profit and doing public good are completely separate imperatives, and when push comes to shove prioritizing profit will reduce the ability to do public good. A business can be too small or too inefficient to do much harm, but we are doomed (literally) if we can't wrap our heads around the fact that all businesses are enemies of the public (literally). So often the conversation simply reaches a full stop at "businesses are just doing what they do" as if we have to accept that - as if making a profit is a good thing. Similarly, fire is a danger to the public. It consumes and destroys things. That doesn't mean we've sworn off fire - on the contrary, we use it to make new dangers (pollution, primarily). It's just that we have developed measures to contain fire. Without measures to contain profit-seeking behavior, humans can't coexist with businesses safely.
- TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
  Your comment comes off as thinly veiled misanthropy. What are you really promoting here? Going back to freezing in the dark?
  - 3y ago

jancsika 3y ago

> Unless they are operating outside of the law, I don't fault "Big Tobacco" or any "Big Business" for, you know, operating a business. Aside from concerns about memory safety, I don't get the criticism of C as a systems language.

99_00 3y ago

Your post is a tautology because you define "wrong" as breaking the law. Yes, of course, if a company is not breaking the law they are not breaking the law. And if we want them to stop doing what they are doing we would benefit from making it illegal.