3 ms·

No, many companies actually try and avoid harming their customers. Thus new safety features on cars etc. Meta, tobacco, etc companies are stuck being unable t

by Retric 1y ago

No, many companies actually try and avoid harming their customers. Thus new safety features on cars etc. Meta, tobacco, etc companies are stuck being unable to change their basic product and that product being inherently harmful.

sznio 1y ago
The driver is the customer of the car, so they are taken care of. Meta's customers are advertisers, not users. User harm is collateral damage of providing the advertiser with attention. Just like car companies care much more about protecting the driver rather than the pedestrian the car might just hit.
- Retric 1y ago
  Non monetary transactions aren’t actually free here. So Facebook users are very much their customers. Advertisers also want protection from negative associations. Which is why many types of YouTube videos get demonetized for example, but good look getting that level of protection on Facebook. As to pedestrian safety, that is on the mind of car manufacturers. Backup cameras for example have significantly reduced the number of pedestrians struck while backing up. In part that’s because it’s the drivers family members at risk, but there’s also concerns around lawsuits etc.
- Eric_WVGG 1y ago
  Meta lies to their advertisers too, though https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/18/facebook-knew-ad-metrics-were-inflated-but-ignored-the-problem-lawsuit-claims.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/18/facebook-knew-ad-metrics-wer... It’s just a huge criminal enterprise.
- ben_w 1y ago
  > Meta's customers are advertisers, not users. Whom Meta serve so well that Meta have shown me adverts for things I cannot buy because I have the wrong gender, location, nationality, or that I just don't understand because I don't speak the language in which the advert was written.
slg 1y ago
Safe cars sell. What makes you think that car safety is anything but a business strategy? There is of course the story of Volvo's handling of the patent for the 3-point seat belt, but that was over a half century ago and was notably not an American company. Has there been anything like that in recent history?
- Retric 1y ago
  In 2025 Renault released their patented Fireman Access system for free. https://fireandsafetyjournalamericas.com/renault-group-makes-fireman-access-available-with-free-license/ https://fireandsafetyjournalamericas.com/renault-group-makes... Toyota offered a ton (20,000+) of EV power train related patents for free in 2019, with the stated goal of combating climate change. Tesla did someone similar in 2014. There’s a surprising number of such cases over time.
  - slg 1y ago
    Fair enough, but you only gave examples without addressing the root of my question. What evidence is there that these aren't business strategies? How do we know these companies aren't just getting a nice press release in exchange for releasing a relatively low value patent or hoping to benefit long term when their technology becomes the industry standard? Is there actually evidence that these innovations would have been incredibly valuable to these companies if kept private but are instead being given away for the betterment of humanity? Because the original point wasn't that companies can never do anything good. It is that when given a choice between the betterment of humanity and profit, they almost always choose profit.
    - Retric 1y ago
      Be careful of those weasel words like almost always. Any dollar not made is profit lost. So, every charitable donation would need to be a net gain for your preposition to be true. Obviously companies make sub optimal choices all the time even when aiming for profit. A more realistic view is large companies are only loosely aligned with any one goal and people inside them regularly direct the companies resources for their own ends. This may mean using suppliers that wine and dine middle management, but it can also mean supporting whatever causes individuals with power feel are important.
NooneAtAll3 1y ago
> Thus new safety features on cars etc. isn't it common story that such car features are not implemented until testing organizations introduce new tests?
- dghlsakjg 1y ago
  The three point safety belt was famously invented, and made a standard feature by Volvo who then let anyone use the patent in the name of safety in 1959. This was decades before laws requiring seatbelts became a thing.

by Retric 1y ago

sznio 1y ago

The driver is the customer of the car, so they are taken care of. Meta's customers are advertisers, not users. User harm is collateral damage of providing the advertiser with attention. Just like car companies care much more about protecting the driver rather than the pedestrian the car might just hit.

Retric 1y ago
Non monetary transactions aren’t actually free here. So Facebook users are very much their customers. Advertisers also want protection from negative associations. Which is why many types of YouTube videos get demonetized for example, but good look getting that level of protection on Facebook. As to pedestrian safety, that is on the mind of car manufacturers. Backup cameras for example have significantly reduced the number of pedestrians struck while backing up. In part that’s because it’s the drivers family members at risk, but there’s also concerns around lawsuits etc.
Eric_WVGG 1y ago
Meta lies to their advertisers too, though https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/18/facebook-knew-ad-metrics-were-inflated-but-ignored-the-problem-lawsuit-claims.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/18/facebook-knew-ad-metrics-wer... It’s just a huge criminal enterprise.
ben_w 1y ago
> Meta's customers are advertisers, not users. Whom Meta serve so well that Meta have shown me adverts for things I cannot buy because I have the wrong gender, location, nationality, or that I just don't understand because I don't speak the language in which the advert was written.

slg 1y ago

Safe cars sell. What makes you think that car safety is anything but a business strategy? There is of course the story of Volvo's handling of the patent for the 3-point seat belt, but that was over a half century ago and was notably not an American company. Has there been anything like that in recent history?

Retric 1y ago
In 2025 Renault released their patented Fireman Access system for free. https://fireandsafetyjournalamericas.com/renault-group-makes-fireman-access-available-with-free-license/ https://fireandsafetyjournalamericas.com/renault-group-makes... Toyota offered a ton (20,000+) of EV power train related patents for free in 2019, with the stated goal of combating climate change. Tesla did someone similar in 2014. There’s a surprising number of such cases over time.
- slg 1y ago
  Fair enough, but you only gave examples without addressing the root of my question. What evidence is there that these aren't business strategies? How do we know these companies aren't just getting a nice press release in exchange for releasing a relatively low value patent or hoping to benefit long term when their technology becomes the industry standard? Is there actually evidence that these innovations would have been incredibly valuable to these companies if kept private but are instead being given away for the betterment of humanity? Because the original point wasn't that companies can never do anything good. It is that when given a choice between the betterment of humanity and profit, they almost always choose profit.
  - Retric 1y ago
    Be careful of those weasel words like almost always. Any dollar not made is profit lost. So, every charitable donation would need to be a net gain for your preposition to be true. Obviously companies make sub optimal choices all the time even when aiming for profit. A more realistic view is large companies are only loosely aligned with any one goal and people inside them regularly direct the companies resources for their own ends. This may mean using suppliers that wine and dine middle management, but it can also mean supporting whatever causes individuals with power feel are important.

NooneAtAll3 1y ago

> Thus new safety features on cars etc. isn't it common story that such car features are not implemented until testing organizations introduce new tests?

dghlsakjg 1y ago
The three point safety belt was famously invented, and made a standard feature by Volvo who then let anyone use the patent in the name of safety in 1959. This was decades before laws requiring seatbelts became a thing.