3 ms·
They're not the same, but they're still a for-profit company. 90's era Microsoft wasn't evil for the sake of being evil; they were evil because they felt that
by tombert 3y ago
They're not the same, but they're still a for-profit company.
90's era Microsoft wasn't evil for the sake of being evil; they were evil because they felt that monopolistic practices were the easiest way to increase their share price. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to try and maximize their share price and so it's hardly unsurprising that they did the infamous Embrace Extend Extinguish, and until regulators stepped in, such practices worked pretty well.
Most companies don't get large enough to form any kind of real monopoly, so it's easy to get on a high-horse. It's also easy to act like it was just a product of "those people", but I fundamentally think that it's a natural consequence of a company that has achieved nearly-total market dominance.
I have very little faith that a multi-trillion-dollar company is going to prioritize what's best for the world. Fundamentally, I think that if they feel they can get away with it, they'll revert to monopolistic tendencies and try and increase share price.
I'm not just picking on Microsoft here either; replace them with basically any other near-monopoly in tech and my criticisms still hold.
- finnjohnsen2 3y ago> 90's era Microsoft wasn't evil for the sake of being evil You are to forgiving. I don't care too much about the why behind the evil in the software business and this is probably why my rants fall under Godwin's law too often. I won't this time. > They have a responsibility to their shareholders to try and maximize their share price ... but I was damn close. I agree with your whole point about Microsoft. But I don't think it's the same company anymore, I like some of the recent stuff, and I trust their lack of monopoly on the web. For now.
- exe34 3y ago> You are to forgiving I think the point is that companies aren't good or evil, they are amoral non-aligned super intelligences that maximise shareholder profits.
- foodgradients 3y ago[dead]
- Loughla 3y agoIs it the intent or outcome that is the evil? If I am intent on killing a million people, but can't, but a company kills a million people via inadvertent faulty products, which is evil?
- leplen 3y agoIf a hurricane kills a thousand people is it evil? It's not really clear whether we're better off trying to treat corporations as moral actors and constantly being surprised when they aren't, or whether we should treat them as amoral quasi-natural processes no one has full control over and construct regulations around them the same way we do for earthquakes.
- jraph 3y agoWe should still treat corporations as moral actor (without being naive of course) because they need to be accountable for what they do. This is why you can sue a company. You can't sue an earthquake. Some companies try to do the right things too. Bad corporate behavior should not be normalized this much.
- patcon 3y agoI like the metaphor, but... a hurricane doesn't write values documents or employee handbooks. These things do inform actions in many orgs, and constrain opportunities to a degree. I disagree with this larger idea (that others here are implying more indirectly) that companies are all the same, and like some force of nature. They are guided and there are better and worse ones. Having said all that, I'm still an anti-capitalist to the extent that one can be one ;)
- bossyTeacher 3y ago> I have very little faith that a multi-trillion-dollar company is going to prioritize what's best for the world You don't have to have faith. Why would anyone EVER believe that? By definition, a company is just a profit making machine. People believing that making rich people richer will necessarily make the world a better place are living in a koolaid-boosted fantasy world