5 ms·

Every story like this has me thinking about two things: 1. Companies have no soul. They are, by design, just chasing revenue. Everything else is just a risk to

Every story like this has me thinking about two things: 1. Companies have no soul. They are, by design, just chasing revenue. Everything else is just a risk to be factored. 2. There are real humans at these companies who choose to take part in the business and design and engineering, etc. I don’t think these humans have no soul (though some won’t), and I don’t think they’re stupid (though some are). I think it’s just very, very easy to create a system of people collectively doing evil things where no one person carries the burden of evil individually enough to really feel sick enough with what they’re contributing to.

jameskilton 1y ago
Never underestimate the evil a human can perpetuate in the name of a paycheck.
- bsenftner 1y ago
  If that paycheck comes from religion, that salaryman will willfully incorporate evil into their everyday behavior, thinking they are doing evil for gawd. We've got a civilization of short sighted idiots.
genocidicbunny 1y ago
> I think it’s just very, very easy to create a system of people collectively doing evil things where no one person carries the burden of evil individually enough to really feel sick enough with what they’re contributing to. Which is why I don't think punishing just the company itself is enough. The engineers, designers, PM's that implemented this should also receive punishment, sufficient enough to make anyone thinking of participating in the implementation of such systems has reason enough to feel sick, if only for their own skin. Make it clear that participating in such things carries the risk of losing your career, a lot of money, and potentially even your freedom.
- DrScientist 1y ago
  I'd argue that the person running the company in this case is responsible. Now they may argue that they didn't know - but you can frame the law such that's it's their duty to know and ensure this sort of stuff doesn't happen. cf Sarbanes-Oxley
- brookst 1y ago
  Definitely a good way to drive talent overseas. Get the low level people to assume all of the risk with none of the upsides; ask recent grades and junior people to do E2E ethical analysis on every project in addition to their 60 hour/week job, give the truly evil people convenient, lower-level scapegoats.
  - Waterluvian 1y ago
    Completely agree. My feeling is that corporate officers should bear the burden that the corporation as a person currently bears. I can only imagine how much better things would be in past experiences if the C-levels felt a personal need to actually know how the sausage is being made.
    - genocidicbunny 1y ago
      I can't fully agree because the way I see it, that is in a way scapegoating the company executives. Are they responsible? Probably, yes, they set the direction of the company and give the orders at the highest level. But we the engineers and designers are the ones actually implementing what is probably a fairly nebulous order at the highest levels into something concrete. They deign that there should be evil created, but we're the ones who are actually making it happen. Some of the responsibility lies with us, and we need to not pretend that's not the case.
      - DrScientist 1y ago
        I'd agree at a personal/moral level there is equal responsibility. However that doesn't recognise both the power and risk/reward imbalance here. If you, as an employee did this - maybe you'd add a few dollars to your stock options over time. If your Zuck - that's potentially billions. And in terms of downside - if you are Zuck and stop it in the company - there is no comeback - if you are an engineer blowing the whistle - you may find it hard to work in the industry ever again - and only one of those two actually needs to work.
        1y ago
- throwawayqqq11 1y ago
  LLC - Limited liability company GmbH - Society with limited liability (german, translated) This liability shield is by design.
  - genocidicbunny 1y ago
    And yet, we still have the ability to pierce the liability veil. Heck, it's even in the name, "limited liability". Not "no liability".
  - zufallsheld 1y ago
    The ceo (Geschäftsführer) is liable when they when they intentionally break the law so the limited liability is not applicable then.
  - account42 1y ago
    Limited liability doesn't mean no liability. It means that you don't personally pay for damages due to mistakes not that you get to wantonly do crime without personal consequences.
bnlxbnlx 1y ago
I think (haven't actually watched it, but on my watchlist) this is exactly what the movie "The Corporation" (2003) [1] lays out. [1] https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0379225 https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0379225
- aorth 1y ago
  Yes you are right. I owned the DVD twenty years ago! It blew my mind at the time...
DrScientist 1y ago
> Companies have no soul. They are, by design, just chasing revenue. Everything else is just a risk to be factored. I disagree - companies are set up/run by people, and those people define company culture/ company culture reflects those people. Not all companies, even big ones, are the same. To make that concrete - if Mark Zuckerberg found out about the above activity and was appalled and sacked everyone involved that would send out a very strong signal. Note this particular method can't be a rogue one man job - it requires coordination across multiple parts of the Meta stack - senior people had to know - which would point to a rotten culture at Meta emanating from the top.
- drweevil 1y ago
  No, companies indeed have no soul. This is all about perverse incentives. While companies are setup/run by people, the (publicly owned) company as a whole only has one incentive: profit. If any person on the inside stands against that, they won't stand long. Investors, executives whose pay depend on it, etc. will make sure of that. So the problem here is to transform a moral incentive into a financial one. A strong outside regulator who will stand its ground can do this, by imposing a meaningful financial penalty to punish the legal/moral transgression. This is why regulations and regulators with teeth are vital in a capitalist system. I'm not holding my breath here. Regulatory capture is a thing. OTOH, Trump's undiplomatic approach to the EU may wind up costing Meta. We'll see.
  - DrScientist 1y ago
    > If any person on the inside stands against that, they won't stand long. Investors, executives whose pay depend on it, etc. will make sure of that. Not in my experience. Even investors are people too ( or the investment companies reflect the values of the people running it ). Sure there are people who believe the only role of a company is to make money ( eg Milton Friedman ). However that's an opinion - not a fact. Other people have different views and run their companies, or place their investments, accordingly. Even if you believe all that matters is the bottom line - you still might take the view that doing reputational damaging stuff like this is bad for the long term bottom line. That's not to say that I don't agree with you that companies will face pressure over the bottom line, and outside regulation is absolutely important. However you should realise that part of running a large public company is aligning your investors to how you want to operate. If you want to take a long term ethical stand then you attract those type of investors and try and get rid of the short term money men. Like, attracts like.
JimDabell 1y ago
Is this just a particular case of diffusion of responsibility?
brookst 1y ago
I agree except perhaps an over generalization. Some companies do have soul, and some pockets within big companies do. Patagonia, of course but even some big companies like Unilever are surprisingly soulful. They’re the exception maybe, but it’s not like companies have to be amoral. In tech, there used to be a ton of borderline hippy companies, including Apple and Google. There are probably smaller ones now, but growth and pressure and wealth does seem to squeeze the soul out of places.
grues-dinner 1y ago
There are multiple entire industries built around diluting and proxying accountability. I suppose since diluting accountability aligns well with making more money by allowing shadier activities it naturally happens "by accident", but I also think it's quite deliberate in many cases.
rsync 1y ago
I think about this a lot … I think the key aspect of a company with “soul” is humans directing the company rather than the company directing the humans. I think the biggest inflection point where this flips is when companies “pivot”. The human founders of a company should have a well-defined philosophical Vision of what it is they are building and who it is for. If this doesn’t work out, the business should be terminated. It is the zombie husks of corporate organizations that have been repurposed to other ends by finance that are dangerous.
vjerancrnjak 1y ago
Look at atrocities of animal agriculture and all difficult engineering done to scale massive slaughter. For some its evil, for others its an interesting itch to scratch.
dogleash 1y ago
> I don’t think these humans have no soul They're sellouts and traitors. Then there are people who will take to pondering what it means to be a sellout in a disingenuous manner. They act like it takes a haughty philosophy club to stroke their beards, reinvent paid labor from first principals and through motivated reasoning discovered "sellout" isn't that all that bad. And it turns out everyone sells out one way or another, so it's a wash what line of work you go into anyway. Now those are the people who have no souls.

jameskilton 1y ago

Never underestimate the evil a human can perpetuate in the name of a paycheck.

bsenftner 1y ago
If that paycheck comes from religion, that salaryman will willfully incorporate evil into their everyday behavior, thinking they are doing evil for gawd. We've got a civilization of short sighted idiots.

genocidicbunny 1y ago

> I think it’s just very, very easy to create a system of people collectively doing evil things where no one person carries the burden of evil individually enough to really feel sick enough with what they’re contributing to. Which is why I don't think punishing just the company itself is enough. The engineers, designers, PM's that implemented this should also receive punishment, sufficient enough to make anyone thinking of participating in the implementation of such systems has reason enough to feel sick, if only for their own skin. Make it clear that participating in such things carries the risk of losing your career, a lot of money, and potentially even your freedom.

DrScientist 1y ago
I'd argue that the person running the company in this case is responsible. Now they may argue that they didn't know - but you can frame the law such that's it's their duty to know and ensure this sort of stuff doesn't happen. cf Sarbanes-Oxley
brookst 1y ago
Definitely a good way to drive talent overseas. Get the low level people to assume all of the risk with none of the upsides; ask recent grades and junior people to do E2E ethical analysis on every project in addition to their 60 hour/week job, give the truly evil people convenient, lower-level scapegoats.
- Waterluvian 1y ago
  Completely agree. My feeling is that corporate officers should bear the burden that the corporation as a person currently bears. I can only imagine how much better things would be in past experiences if the C-levels felt a personal need to actually know how the sausage is being made.
  - genocidicbunny 1y ago
    I can't fully agree because the way I see it, that is in a way scapegoating the company executives. Are they responsible? Probably, yes, they set the direction of the company and give the orders at the highest level. But we the engineers and designers are the ones actually implementing what is probably a fairly nebulous order at the highest levels into something concrete. They deign that there should be evil created, but we're the ones who are actually making it happen. Some of the responsibility lies with us, and we need to not pretend that's not the case.
    - DrScientist 1y ago
      I'd agree at a personal/moral level there is equal responsibility. However that doesn't recognise both the power and risk/reward imbalance here. If you, as an employee did this - maybe you'd add a few dollars to your stock options over time. If your Zuck - that's potentially billions. And in terms of downside - if you are Zuck and stop it in the company - there is no comeback - if you are an engineer blowing the whistle - you may find it hard to work in the industry ever again - and only one of those two actually needs to work.
      - 1y ago
throwawayqqq11 1y ago
LLC - Limited liability company GmbH - Society with limited liability (german, translated) This liability shield is by design.
- genocidicbunny 1y ago
  And yet, we still have the ability to pierce the liability veil. Heck, it's even in the name, "limited liability". Not "no liability".
- zufallsheld 1y ago
  The ceo (Geschäftsführer) is liable when they when they intentionally break the law so the limited liability is not applicable then.
- account42 1y ago
  Limited liability doesn't mean no liability. It means that you don't personally pay for damages due to mistakes not that you get to wantonly do crime without personal consequences.

bnlxbnlx 1y ago

I think (haven't actually watched it, but on my watchlist) this is exactly what the movie "The Corporation" (2003) [1] lays out. [1] https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0379225 https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0379225

aorth 1y ago
Yes you are right. I owned the DVD twenty years ago! It blew my mind at the time...

DrScientist 1y ago

> Companies have no soul. They are, by design, just chasing revenue. Everything else is just a risk to be factored. I disagree - companies are set up/run by people, and those people define company culture/ company culture reflects those people. Not all companies, even big ones, are the same. To make that concrete - if Mark Zuckerberg found out about the above activity and was appalled and sacked everyone involved that would send out a very strong signal. Note this particular method can't be a rogue one man job - it requires coordination across multiple parts of the Meta stack - senior people had to know - which would point to a rotten culture at Meta emanating from the top.

drweevil 1y ago
No, companies indeed have no soul. This is all about perverse incentives. While companies are setup/run by people, the (publicly owned) company as a whole only has one incentive: profit. If any person on the inside stands against that, they won't stand long. Investors, executives whose pay depend on it, etc. will make sure of that. So the problem here is to transform a moral incentive into a financial one. A strong outside regulator who will stand its ground can do this, by imposing a meaningful financial penalty to punish the legal/moral transgression. This is why regulations and regulators with teeth are vital in a capitalist system. I'm not holding my breath here. Regulatory capture is a thing. OTOH, Trump's undiplomatic approach to the EU may wind up costing Meta. We'll see.
- DrScientist 1y ago
  > If any person on the inside stands against that, they won't stand long. Investors, executives whose pay depend on it, etc. will make sure of that. Not in my experience. Even investors are people too ( or the investment companies reflect the values of the people running it ). Sure there are people who believe the only role of a company is to make money ( eg Milton Friedman ). However that's an opinion - not a fact. Other people have different views and run their companies, or place their investments, accordingly. Even if you believe all that matters is the bottom line - you still might take the view that doing reputational damaging stuff like this is bad for the long term bottom line. That's not to say that I don't agree with you that companies will face pressure over the bottom line, and outside regulation is absolutely important. However you should realise that part of running a large public company is aligning your investors to how you want to operate. If you want to take a long term ethical stand then you attract those type of investors and try and get rid of the short term money men. Like, attracts like.

JimDabell 1y ago

Is this just a particular case of diffusion of responsibility?

brookst 1y ago

I agree except perhaps an over generalization. Some companies do have soul, and some pockets within big companies do. Patagonia, of course but even some big companies like Unilever are surprisingly soulful. They’re the exception maybe, but it’s not like companies have to be amoral. In tech, there used to be a ton of borderline hippy companies, including Apple and Google. There are probably smaller ones now, but growth and pressure and wealth does seem to squeeze the soul out of places.

grues-dinner 1y ago

There are multiple entire industries built around diluting and proxying accountability. I suppose since diluting accountability aligns well with making more money by allowing shadier activities it naturally happens "by accident", but I also think it's quite deliberate in many cases.

rsync 1y ago

I think about this a lot … I think the key aspect of a company with “soul” is humans directing the company rather than the company directing the humans. I think the biggest inflection point where this flips is when companies “pivot”. The human founders of a company should have a well-defined philosophical Vision of what it is they are building and who it is for. If this doesn’t work out, the business should be terminated. It is the zombie husks of corporate organizations that have been repurposed to other ends by finance that are dangerous.

vjerancrnjak 1y ago

Look at atrocities of animal agriculture and all difficult engineering done to scale massive slaughter. For some its evil, for others its an interesting itch to scratch.

dogleash 1y ago

> I don’t think these humans have no soul They're sellouts and traitors. Then there are people who will take to pondering what it means to be a sellout in a disingenuous manner. They act like it takes a haughty philosophy club to stroke their beards, reinvent paid labor from first principals and through motivated reasoning discovered "sellout" isn't that all that bad. And it turns out everyone sells out one way or another, so it's a wash what line of work you go into anyway. Now those are the people who have no souls.