3 ms·

> No, it does not work both ways. The roles of governments and corporations are not symmetric. > > Good regulation is regulation that has good outcomes. [...]

> No, it does not work both ways. The roles of governments and corporations are not symmetric. > > Good regulation is regulation that has good outcomes. [...] You don't seem to explain what the role of corporations is or what a good corporation looks like. If these things are not symmetric, you need to finish your explanation of why or how they aren't. Corporations and the whole of property rights only exist because of government protection, so it would be pretty audacious--in my opinion--to assert that corporations have no duty to behave to the benefit of society. I'm not saying that's your claim, but I'm curious as to how close you're willing to get to that claim...

fauigerzigerk 3y ago
Governments are supposed to represent the whole of society. The justification for their policies is ideally based on democratic legitimacy. No entity outside of government can possibly have that legitimacy. In my opinion it is not audacious at all to reject the idea that corporations should intentionally pursue societal goals or claim to act out of a sense of duty. Of course we want the effect of what corporations do to be of net benefit to society as a whole. But this cannot be based on their intentions or sense of duty. It has to be based on the systemic effects of them pursuing their own (possibly enlightened) self interest within the framework of the law. It is for governments to make sure that these effects are beneficial and to intervene when they are not. So the asymmetry I see is that capitalism is a tool of society, not the other way around.
- n4r9 3y ago
  I would regard it as a duty of government to ensure that using the internet is safe and respects user privacy, but not to ensure that the internet has a clean UI. To that extent, I'd argue that the EU is achieving good outcomes. Ensuring a clean UI and smooth user experience is one of those things that should manifest as a result of market economics, but does not manifest because markets don't really work that way.
  - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
    I see absolutely no reason why clean UX should manifest as a result of market forces. Media consumers, on average, are clearly unwilling to pay for ad-free experiences.
    - n4r9 3y ago
      I won't pursue that assertion as it's tangential. I shouldn't have brought it up. The main point is that clean UX is not the purpose of the EU's data laws.
- ragnese 3y ago
  > In my opinion it is not audacious at all to reject the idea that corporations should intentionally pursue societal goals or claim to act out of a sense of duty. I still find it somewhat silly to reject the idea that a corporation (run by human beings) shouldn't intentionally be evil for the sake of maximizing profit, but I do understand that this is a fairly common Friedman-esque point of view. But, even so, I guess "duty" was the wrong word for me to use. I more meant that if a corporation does NOT benefit society, we should expect the corporation to stop existing. So, in that sense, there's a "duty" (existential requirement) to benefit society. > Of course we want the effect of what corporations do to be of net benefit to society as a whole. But this cannot be based on their intentions or sense of duty. It has to be based on the systemic effects of them pursuing their own (possibly enlightened) self interest within the framework of the law. > > It is for governments to make sure that these effects are beneficial and to intervene when they are not. So the asymmetry I see is that capitalism is a tool of society, not the other way around. I feel like you're circling back around to almost disagree with yourself. Several comments back in this thread someone made a point about "unintended consequences" of the law and applying "game theory" logic to it, and another commenter replied that the companies in question could also have seen the law coming if they misbehaved too badly. That commenter asked if the "game theory" logic shouldn't go both ways, and that we should then blame the corporations for the regulation because the government is just doing what governments do. You replied that the argument does NOT go both ways because the roles of government and corporations are not symmetric. But, what you're arguing here seems to be consistent with the view that the "unintended consequences" and "game theory" logic DOES go both ways. You acknowledge that it is a government's duty to intervene when corporations are not benefiting society, and you also say that corporations will pursue their own self-interest within the framework of the law. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but the only way I can resolve this asymmetry in my mind is to have a framework where corporations doing things that are bad for society is okay, because the government is supposed to stop them; but if the government is unable to fully stop them from being bad, then it's STILL not the corporation's fault, but the government's... It just sounds like we've gotten lost in the abstractions of corporations and governments. At the end of the day, these are decisions being made by fellow sentient human beings, and if a corporation's humans make some evil decision, I refuse to let them off the hook with "well, free markets" and "they have no choice but to maximize profits".

fauigerzigerk 3y ago

Governments are supposed to represent the whole of society. The justification for their policies is ideally based on democratic legitimacy. No entity outside of government can possibly have that legitimacy. In my opinion it is not audacious at all to reject the idea that corporations should intentionally pursue societal goals or claim to act out of a sense of duty. Of course we want the effect of what corporations do to be of net benefit to society as a whole. But this cannot be based on their intentions or sense of duty. It has to be based on the systemic effects of them pursuing their own (possibly enlightened) self interest within the framework of the law. It is for governments to make sure that these effects are beneficial and to intervene when they are not. So the asymmetry I see is that capitalism is a tool of society, not the other way around.

n4r9 3y ago
I would regard it as a duty of government to ensure that using the internet is safe and respects user privacy, but not to ensure that the internet has a clean UI. To that extent, I'd argue that the EU is achieving good outcomes. Ensuring a clean UI and smooth user experience is one of those things that should manifest as a result of market economics, but does not manifest because markets don't really work that way.
- fauigerzigerk 3y ago
  I see absolutely no reason why clean UX should manifest as a result of market forces. Media consumers, on average, are clearly unwilling to pay for ad-free experiences.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    I won't pursue that assertion as it's tangential. I shouldn't have brought it up. The main point is that clean UX is not the purpose of the EU's data laws.
ragnese 3y ago
> In my opinion it is not audacious at all to reject the idea that corporations should intentionally pursue societal goals or claim to act out of a sense of duty. I still find it somewhat silly to reject the idea that a corporation (run by human beings) shouldn't intentionally be evil for the sake of maximizing profit, but I do understand that this is a fairly common Friedman-esque point of view. But, even so, I guess "duty" was the wrong word for me to use. I more meant that if a corporation does NOT benefit society, we should expect the corporation to stop existing. So, in that sense, there's a "duty" (existential requirement) to benefit society. > Of course we want the effect of what corporations do to be of net benefit to society as a whole. But this cannot be based on their intentions or sense of duty. It has to be based on the systemic effects of them pursuing their own (possibly enlightened) self interest within the framework of the law. > > It is for governments to make sure that these effects are beneficial and to intervene when they are not. So the asymmetry I see is that capitalism is a tool of society, not the other way around. I feel like you're circling back around to almost disagree with yourself. Several comments back in this thread someone made a point about "unintended consequences" of the law and applying "game theory" logic to it, and another commenter replied that the companies in question could also have seen the law coming if they misbehaved too badly. That commenter asked if the "game theory" logic shouldn't go both ways, and that we should then blame the corporations for the regulation because the government is just doing what governments do. You replied that the argument does NOT go both ways because the roles of government and corporations are not symmetric. But, what you're arguing here seems to be consistent with the view that the "unintended consequences" and "game theory" logic DOES go both ways. You acknowledge that it is a government's duty to intervene when corporations are not benefiting society, and you also say that corporations will pursue their own self-interest within the framework of the law. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but the only way I can resolve this asymmetry in my mind is to have a framework where corporations doing things that are bad for society is okay, because the government is supposed to stop them; but if the government is unable to fully stop them from being bad, then it's STILL not the corporation's fault, but the government's... It just sounds like we've gotten lost in the abstractions of corporations and governments. At the end of the day, these are decisions being made by fellow sentient human beings, and if a corporation's humans make some evil decision, I refuse to let them off the hook with "well, free markets" and "they have no choice but to maximize profits".