4 ms·

Why are you displacing blame from meta?

ModernMech 1y ago
Because what are we going to blame them for? Acting in accordance to the way their corporate shareholders and thereby society expect them to? I'm not not interested in that fight anymore. If you want things to change, the idea of a corporation and its role in society has to fundamentally change. What should be happening is our government should be doing this research and shutting down corporations that prey on and harm children. Instead our government protects people who prey on and harm children. And yes, that extends to corporate people. If you want something to change, fix the problem. Meta is not the problem.
- watwut 1y ago
  I think that other thing that needs to happen ia that executives need to stop being excused with "shareholders want it" whenever they do something illegal or immoral. And they need to have actual responsibility for what they order the company to do amd for what it does.
- binary132 1y ago
  that’s like saying DuPont and 3M weren’t the problem for hiding their knowledge about the dangers and wide prevalence of PFAS contamination from the public instead of handling it (because that might be bad for their Teflon product lines). would you also argue that they had no social obligation or responsibility for failing to do the right thing? how about the radium girls, same deal? have you ever considered the possibility that maybe the widespread total abandonment of ethical and moral norms and standards is the actual problem, and figuring out how to adequately punish the mass violation of ethics is downstream of that? Meta is the problem. Tolerating Meta is equally the problem, but it doesn’t make Meta not the problem.
  - tavavex 1y ago
    I don't think you and ModernMech are really disagreeing over the core premise. They aren't saying that Meta isn't reprehensible on a personal level, but that Meta is acting in a very predictable way given the incentives that our system provides to companies like them. If Meta or DuPont didn't exist, someone else would've done similar if not worse things. The issue isn't just personal flaws within specific companies, the issue is that we reward businesses that do these things. Either way we'd self-select to a set of equally abusive companies. The solution isn't just punishing Meta, it's changing the rules to make Meta's practices deeply unprofitable, and/or making profit not be the most important thing in the universe.
josfredo 1y ago
It’s the responsible thing to do. As a member of society you have to own your misbehaviors too. You can not have it both ways.
tengbretson 1y ago
Am I supposed to blame a fox for eating my chickens?
- magicalist 1y ago
  > Am I supposed to blame a fox for eating my chickens? Is the fox made up of sentient humans with an ethical and moral obligation to other humans? Then absolutely. You can argue that's not sufficient to get the fox to change its behavior, but pretending it's an unthinking animal or force of nature is silly.
  - tengbretson 1y ago
    > but pretending it's an unthinking animal or force of nature is silly. If my actions have 0 impact on its behavior then treating it this way is my only sane option. I can, however, build a fence.
    - GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
      you could build a small fence. or we could build a bigger, more effective fence together. self-preservation for its own sake is not the only way.
  - speakfreely 1y ago
    I think his argument is more of the "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" variety. At some point complaining about ethics and morality of someone who has repeatedly shown no concern for either just makes you look like the unreasonable one.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - fsflover 1y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45170212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45170212
- 1y ago
philipallstar 1y ago
The adults meant to keep children safe aren't the employees of Meta.

Because what are we going to blame them for? Acting in accordance to the way their corporate shareholders and thereby society expect them to? I'm not not interested in that fight anymore. If you want things to change, the idea of a corporation and its role in society has to fundamentally change. What should be happening is our government should be doing this research and shutting down corporations that prey on and harm children. Instead our government protects people who prey on and harm children. And yes, that extends to corporate people. If you want something to change, fix the problem. Meta is not the problem.

watwut 1y ago
I think that other thing that needs to happen ia that executives need to stop being excused with "shareholders want it" whenever they do something illegal or immoral. And they need to have actual responsibility for what they order the company to do amd for what it does.
binary132 1y ago
that’s like saying DuPont and 3M weren’t the problem for hiding their knowledge about the dangers and wide prevalence of PFAS contamination from the public instead of handling it (because that might be bad for their Teflon product lines). would you also argue that they had no social obligation or responsibility for failing to do the right thing? how about the radium girls, same deal? have you ever considered the possibility that maybe the widespread total abandonment of ethical and moral norms and standards is the actual problem, and figuring out how to adequately punish the mass violation of ethics is downstream of that? Meta is the problem. Tolerating Meta is equally the problem, but it doesn’t make Meta not the problem.
- tavavex 1y ago
  I don't think you and ModernMech are really disagreeing over the core premise. They aren't saying that Meta isn't reprehensible on a personal level, but that Meta is acting in a very predictable way given the incentives that our system provides to companies like them. If Meta or DuPont didn't exist, someone else would've done similar if not worse things. The issue isn't just personal flaws within specific companies, the issue is that we reward businesses that do these things. Either way we'd self-select to a set of equally abusive companies. The solution isn't just punishing Meta, it's changing the rules to make Meta's practices deeply unprofitable, and/or making profit not be the most important thing in the universe.

josfredo 1y ago

It’s the responsible thing to do. As a member of society you have to own your misbehaviors too. You can not have it both ways.

tengbretson 1y ago

Am I supposed to blame a fox for eating my chickens?

magicalist 1y ago
> Am I supposed to blame a fox for eating my chickens? Is the fox made up of sentient humans with an ethical and moral obligation to other humans? Then absolutely. You can argue that's not sufficient to get the fox to change its behavior, but pretending it's an unthinking animal or force of nature is silly.
- tengbretson 1y ago
  > but pretending it's an unthinking animal or force of nature is silly. If my actions have 0 impact on its behavior then treating it this way is my only sane option. I can, however, build a fence.
  - GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
    you could build a small fence. or we could build a bigger, more effective fence together. self-preservation for its own sake is not the only way.
- speakfreely 1y ago
  I think his argument is more of the "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" variety. At some point complaining about ethics and morality of someone who has repeatedly shown no concern for either just makes you look like the unreasonable one.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- fsflover 1y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45170212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45170212
1y ago

philipallstar 1y ago

The adults meant to keep children safe aren't the employees of Meta.