4 ms·

I'd love to see that document and I'm sure there's a lot to learn from it and a lot of knowledge to use for the good of humanity. The fact that a shady busines

I'd love to see that document and I'm sure there's a lot to learn from it and a lot of knowledge to use for the good of humanity. The fact that a shady business used some tactics to advance its cause doesn't automatically condemns the means.

MeetingsBrowser 2y ago
Most shady businesses can be boiled down to, “we exploit people for personal gain”. Which is always bad.
- ahmedfromtunis 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - brailsafe 2y ago
    And Mr Beast dangles a fortune in front of one of his employees that grew up in poverty to pressure them into staying in a room for 100 days with all the lights on. Guess it's all the same though.
    - hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
      How is that worse than grocery stores price gouging resulting in malnourishment, starvation and homelessness?
      - chefandy 2y ago
        You're dramatically overestimating the profitability of selling groceries. Most of the high prices come from further up the supply chain, or other parts of the local economies like rent, utilities, transportation, and labor. Obviously some stores are better than others, but if some company is just milking people in any given grocery market, competitors will show up in a second to take their customers away. Even in food deserts served only by expensive bodegas and the like— selling fresh food at low volumes is fucking expensive because of how much waste you have, and beyond that, your street corner retail space is a whole lot more expensive per food item than a grocery store on the edge of town.
        hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
        Australia has two major grocery chains who stockpile vacant land to remain monopolistic. The supermarkets screw suppliers on price and will dump them entirely if they speak out. They also produce their own ‘home brands’ which undercut competitors as they own the entire supply chain. You can be damn sure it’s happening here. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yoo6XVxpiU8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yoo6XVxpiU8 Edit: and whether it happens or not, my question was related to whether mr beast dangling a million dollars for someone to stand in a circle for 100 days is as unethical as price gouging essential items. One may take advantage of a few people and is probably not extremely biased towards the most vulnerable, (e.g. the participants are probably not homeless), the other is taking advantage of everyone, homelessness is surging in aus atm. I see Mr beasts videos as far less damaging than the current problem in Australia.
        chefandy 2y ago
        Not all shady business practices are gouging. I was responding to the statement you made. Selling a product cheaper than your competitors, even if you're using unfair leverage to do it is not by any measure 'gouging.' In the US, discount stores are most likely to play the "strategically let this useful land moulder in a densely populated area during a housing crisis" game but they're definitely not price gouging. Those are problems with business ethics, and I do not consider them more harmful, generally, than lampooning poor people to an audience of millions. The stigma of poverty and houselessness has direct, consequential economic and mental health impact on the people that experience it.
        hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
        Australian supermarkets are screwing producers by making lowball offers on stock and increasing prices far beyond inflation to consumers. They are both price gouging and performing other shady business practices at the same time.
        chefandy 2y ago
        Ok, so one of those things is price gouging (the price gouging), which sounds like a problem local to the Australian grocery market. It's obviously bad, but Mr Beast has 12x Australia's population in YouTube followers. The comparison doesn't make sense. Your trying to whatabout this with that is completely bizarre, and why your initial comment is dead. Bye
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - saurik 2y ago
    Equitable positive-sum trade isn't somehow inherently the same thing as exploitation.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      I wouldn't call it that, but I think the term does get used in that way: any profit due to my skills is my labour being "exploited" in some sense. (Not one I am upset by). The terminological disagreement makes it easier to miss abusive exploitation.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    I don't think "exploitation" is the right word to use for every business transaction. When there's choice/competition and transparency/information (i.e. not some form of advanced psychological manipulation going on that can be impossible to economically avoid for many), who's being exploited?
    - hnbad 2y ago
      "Profit" means you're overpaying (i.e. the amount of money you exchange for goods or services exceeds the cost of providing them). Failure to operate at a profit (even if it may be indirect in cases like VC-funded disruptors undercutting established competitors for early growth) means the business will fail. Business transactions are exploitative. That's the entire point of them. Otherwise it'd just be tit-for-tat or a gift economy. You don't want to recover your investment, you want to grow your investment. And beating inflation is the baseline.
    - d1sxeyes 2y ago
      'exploit' comes from Latin via French, where the meaning of 'to attain profit through abuse' is further down on the list of meanings (https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/exploitation/32280 https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/exploitation/...) compared to English where it's the primary or secondary meaning (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit). I'd probably agree that it makes sense to try to find a synonym where possible, but I wouldn't say it's necessary in cases where it would not be succinct or clear otherwise.
      - CydeWeys 2y ago
        We're speaking English in this conversation, not Latin or French. The word "exploit" clearly has a significantly negative connotation that is not appropriate in this context.
  - encoderer 2y ago
    Such a cynical take.
  - KeplerBoy 2y ago
    I disagree. The grocery store doesn't exploit my inability to grow food, it enables me to do something more productive with my time instead of growing food and leaving that part of society to the experts. Food surplus and specialization are vital concepts to any advanced society.
  - smaudet 2y ago
    Nah, you have the wrong idea completely, non-shady businesses provide a good or service, that you can't obtain (easily) yourself. Period, non-stop. (Ignoring for a minute monopolies, which can actually be quite fair but usually aren't unless heavily regulated.) If you have infinite time, resources, patience, sure, you might be able to provide the same thing for yourself, but not everyone has a farm, not everyone has the time or ability to visit Grandma... Shady businesses try to sell you gum while on your call to Grandma (nothing to do with calling grandma, just a "value-added" thing). I'd also posit, if you don't know the difference, you're probably being exploited yourself. I'd take a hard look at who you are giving money to, and try re-evaluate if they are providing you value or not (with respect to your circumstances).
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  Apple: exploits factory workers to fulfill the customer’s desire for status symbols. McDonalds: exploits hunger by conditioning you to desire convenient, unhealthy, and ultimately unsatisfying food. TikTok: exploits your dopamine to condition you to watch content, keeping you entertained with new quick doses constantly. You can pick almost any major company and find some way they exploit someone else.
  - MeetingsBrowser 2y ago
    > You can pick almost any major company and find some way they exploit someone else. Correction, you can pick any extremely large corporation. Very large (i.e. successful) exploit people by design. Businesses not willing to exploit people are at a disadvantage and can never be as successful as those that are willing to exploit others.
    - tsunamifury 2y ago
      You are being down voted but many years on this earth building trillion dollar companies has taught me you are right in a way no one wants to hear
      - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
        The richest business in history was the Dutch East India Company. The richest below them are the Mississippi Company, rounding it out with the South Sea Company. Within the top 10 includes oil companies, who exploit our future for profit, and Big Tech, who exploit us for profit. Is it any surprise most of the richest companies in history exploited human capital for massive gains?
  - RobotToaster 2y ago
    Pretty sure a dude called Karl wrote a book about this.
- ben_w 2y ago
  "Exploit" (mostly) only has a negative connotation in the context of people; if you exploit a resource or an opportunity, it seldom gets seen the same way. Because of the latter, businesses leaders can also quite often talk about the former without even noticing that normal people regard "exploiting people" as a bad thing. Sometimes it's hard to even agree what counts as exploitation of a person: The profit margin of every successful employer I've ever had is, in some sense, them exploiting me — but I've also worked in places where that's negative, loss-making, and the investors paid for my time with the profits made from others, which feels to me like the successes I've been involved with paying for the failures, not exploitation.
- hnbad 2y ago
  Exploitation and profit are the same concept just different framing. The distinction between shady and non is usually more about who is being exploited, to what extent they're being exploited and how transparent the business is about that exploitation.
vincnetas 2y ago
You could also like to read some documents from Karl Bischoff (the architect of Auschwitz) https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/through-the-lens/auschwitz-blueprints.asp https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/through-the-lens... And also Vrba–Wetzler report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrba–Wetzler_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrba–Wetzler_report I don't want someone to think that i'm blaming someone for reading stuff. I just think and see that sometimes for people it is very easy to forget or miss bad things (harm to society) when their salary (or income) depends on ignoring this.

MeetingsBrowser 2y ago

Most shady businesses can be boiled down to, “we exploit people for personal gain”. Which is always bad.

ahmedfromtunis 2y ago
[flagged]
- brailsafe 2y ago
  And Mr Beast dangles a fortune in front of one of his employees that grew up in poverty to pressure them into staying in a room for 100 days with all the lights on. Guess it's all the same though.
  - hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
    How is that worse than grocery stores price gouging resulting in malnourishment, starvation and homelessness?
    - chefandy 2y ago
      You're dramatically overestimating the profitability of selling groceries. Most of the high prices come from further up the supply chain, or other parts of the local economies like rent, utilities, transportation, and labor. Obviously some stores are better than others, but if some company is just milking people in any given grocery market, competitors will show up in a second to take their customers away. Even in food deserts served only by expensive bodegas and the like— selling fresh food at low volumes is fucking expensive because of how much waste you have, and beyond that, your street corner retail space is a whole lot more expensive per food item than a grocery store on the edge of town.
      - hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
        Australia has two major grocery chains who stockpile vacant land to remain monopolistic. The supermarkets screw suppliers on price and will dump them entirely if they speak out. They also produce their own ‘home brands’ which undercut competitors as they own the entire supply chain. You can be damn sure it’s happening here. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yoo6XVxpiU8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yoo6XVxpiU8 Edit: and whether it happens or not, my question was related to whether mr beast dangling a million dollars for someone to stand in a circle for 100 days is as unethical as price gouging essential items. One may take advantage of a few people and is probably not extremely biased towards the most vulnerable, (e.g. the participants are probably not homeless), the other is taking advantage of everyone, homelessness is surging in aus atm. I see Mr beasts videos as far less damaging than the current problem in Australia.
        chefandy 2y ago
        Not all shady business practices are gouging. I was responding to the statement you made. Selling a product cheaper than your competitors, even if you're using unfair leverage to do it is not by any measure 'gouging.' In the US, discount stores are most likely to play the "strategically let this useful land moulder in a densely populated area during a housing crisis" game but they're definitely not price gouging. Those are problems with business ethics, and I do not consider them more harmful, generally, than lampooning poor people to an audience of millions. The stigma of poverty and houselessness has direct, consequential economic and mental health impact on the people that experience it.
        hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
        Australian supermarkets are screwing producers by making lowball offers on stock and increasing prices far beyond inflation to consumers. They are both price gouging and performing other shady business practices at the same time.
        chefandy 2y ago
        Ok, so one of those things is price gouging (the price gouging), which sounds like a problem local to the Australian grocery market. It's obviously bad, but Mr Beast has 12x Australia's population in YouTube followers. The comparison doesn't make sense. Your trying to whatabout this with that is completely bizarre, and why your initial comment is dead. Bye
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- saurik 2y ago
  Equitable positive-sum trade isn't somehow inherently the same thing as exploitation.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    I wouldn't call it that, but I think the term does get used in that way: any profit due to my skills is my labour being "exploited" in some sense. (Not one I am upset by). The terminological disagreement makes it easier to miss abusive exploitation.
- lxgr 2y ago
  I don't think "exploitation" is the right word to use for every business transaction. When there's choice/competition and transparency/information (i.e. not some form of advanced psychological manipulation going on that can be impossible to economically avoid for many), who's being exploited?
  - hnbad 2y ago
    "Profit" means you're overpaying (i.e. the amount of money you exchange for goods or services exceeds the cost of providing them). Failure to operate at a profit (even if it may be indirect in cases like VC-funded disruptors undercutting established competitors for early growth) means the business will fail. Business transactions are exploitative. That's the entire point of them. Otherwise it'd just be tit-for-tat or a gift economy. You don't want to recover your investment, you want to grow your investment. And beating inflation is the baseline.
  - d1sxeyes 2y ago
    'exploit' comes from Latin via French, where the meaning of 'to attain profit through abuse' is further down on the list of meanings (https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/exploitation/32280 https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/exploitation/...) compared to English where it's the primary or secondary meaning (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit). I'd probably agree that it makes sense to try to find a synonym where possible, but I wouldn't say it's necessary in cases where it would not be succinct or clear otherwise.
    - CydeWeys 2y ago
      We're speaking English in this conversation, not Latin or French. The word "exploit" clearly has a significantly negative connotation that is not appropriate in this context.
- encoderer 2y ago
  Such a cynical take.
- KeplerBoy 2y ago
  I disagree. The grocery store doesn't exploit my inability to grow food, it enables me to do something more productive with my time instead of growing food and leaving that part of society to the experts. Food surplus and specialization are vital concepts to any advanced society.
- smaudet 2y ago
  Nah, you have the wrong idea completely, non-shady businesses provide a good or service, that you can't obtain (easily) yourself. Period, non-stop. (Ignoring for a minute monopolies, which can actually be quite fair but usually aren't unless heavily regulated.) If you have infinite time, resources, patience, sure, you might be able to provide the same thing for yourself, but not everyone has a farm, not everyone has the time or ability to visit Grandma... Shady businesses try to sell you gum while on your call to Grandma (nothing to do with calling grandma, just a "value-added" thing). I'd also posit, if you don't know the difference, you're probably being exploited yourself. I'd take a hard look at who you are giving money to, and try re-evaluate if they are providing you value or not (with respect to your circumstances).
tourmalinetaco 2y ago
Apple: exploits factory workers to fulfill the customer’s desire for status symbols. McDonalds: exploits hunger by conditioning you to desire convenient, unhealthy, and ultimately unsatisfying food. TikTok: exploits your dopamine to condition you to watch content, keeping you entertained with new quick doses constantly. You can pick almost any major company and find some way they exploit someone else.
- MeetingsBrowser 2y ago
  > You can pick almost any major company and find some way they exploit someone else. Correction, you can pick any extremely large corporation. Very large (i.e. successful) exploit people by design. Businesses not willing to exploit people are at a disadvantage and can never be as successful as those that are willing to exploit others.
  - tsunamifury 2y ago
    You are being down voted but many years on this earth building trillion dollar companies has taught me you are right in a way no one wants to hear
    - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
      The richest business in history was the Dutch East India Company. The richest below them are the Mississippi Company, rounding it out with the South Sea Company. Within the top 10 includes oil companies, who exploit our future for profit, and Big Tech, who exploit us for profit. Is it any surprise most of the richest companies in history exploited human capital for massive gains?
- RobotToaster 2y ago
  Pretty sure a dude called Karl wrote a book about this.
ben_w 2y ago
"Exploit" (mostly) only has a negative connotation in the context of people; if you exploit a resource or an opportunity, it seldom gets seen the same way. Because of the latter, businesses leaders can also quite often talk about the former without even noticing that normal people regard "exploiting people" as a bad thing. Sometimes it's hard to even agree what counts as exploitation of a person: The profit margin of every successful employer I've ever had is, in some sense, them exploiting me — but I've also worked in places where that's negative, loss-making, and the investors paid for my time with the profits made from others, which feels to me like the successes I've been involved with paying for the failures, not exploitation.
hnbad 2y ago
Exploitation and profit are the same concept just different framing. The distinction between shady and non is usually more about who is being exploited, to what extent they're being exploited and how transparent the business is about that exploitation.

vincnetas 2y ago

You could also like to read some documents from Karl Bischoff (the architect of Auschwitz) https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/through-the-lens/auschwitz-blueprints.asp https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/through-the-lens... And also Vrba–Wetzler report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrba–Wetzler_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrba–Wetzler_report I don't want someone to think that i'm blaming someone for reading stuff. I just think and see that sometimes for people it is very easy to forget or miss bad things (harm to society) when their salary (or income) depends on ignoring this.