3 ms·
[flagged]
by Cheer2171 11mo ago
[flagged]
- biophysboy 11mo agoI think its more subtle; they fight for regulations they deem reasonable and against those they deem unreasonable. Anything that curtails growth of the business is unreasonable.
- computerthings 11mo ago[dead]
- wubrr 11mo agoWhich is entirely unreasonable, and there's no need to make excuses or explain away this borderline psychopathy.
- sph 11mo agoThere is a term in biology for things which decide to grow uncontrollably, to the detriment of the surrounding ecosystem.
- mykowebhn 11mo agoThe non-biological term would be "billionaire".
- AnthonyMouse 11mo agoThe non-biological term would be "publicly-traded corporation". If anything their behavior is worse when there is no controlling founder.
- breppp 11mo agoThis thread is an exaggeration. Disney could have operated Micky Mouse themed casinos on its premises with probable success, it could also lobby to change regulation that is associated with that. However companies have balancing factors which are other than maximizing short term profits, such as moral image
- amarcheschi 11mo ago[flagged]
- breppp 11mo agomaybe these tech companies do not subscribe to your notion of modern day gestapo (an organization that was involved in killing 10+ million people in horrible ways) or a "genocide" that is minuscule in comparison to american bombings in Japan, which were similarly in the context of war and actually targeted civilians Maybe your use of these hyperboles are just an artifact of speech deficiencies of our social media engineered reality?
- TeMPOraL 11mo agoIt's called life. All life grows and consumes as much as it can. It's what makes it life. "Control" happens when there's more life contesting the same limited resources, and usually involves starvation, but if the situation persists on evolutionary timescales, then some life adapts to proactively limit growth. Then, if some of that adapted life unadapts itself, we call that "cancer", which I think is what you were going for.
- bloppe 11mo agoTo be fair, businesses should assume that customers actually "want" what they create demand for. In the case of misleading or dangerously addictive products, regulation should fall to government, because that's the only actor that can prevent a race to the bottom.
- gmd63 11mo agoThe folks who succeed most in business are the type who have an intuition for what's best. They're not some automaton reading too far into and amplifying the imperfect and shallow signals of "demand" in a marketplace.
- mistrial9 11mo agoTo be fair, organized predatory behavior is to be expected? joke- The World Council of Animals meeting completes with morning sessions with "OK great, now who is for lunch?"
- baobabKoodaa 11mo agoBecause all people everywhere are psychopaths who will stab you for $5 if they can get away with it? If you take that attitude, why even go to "work" or run a "business"? It'd be so much more efficient to just stab-stab-stab and take the money directly.
- lmm 11mo ago> Because all people everywhere are psychopaths who will stab you for $5 if they can get away with it? Not all people everywhere, but most successful businesspeople. > It'd be so much more efficient to just stab-stab-stab and take the money directly. It isn't though? If you do that then you get locked up and lose the money, so the smart psychopaths go into business instead.
- bloppe 11mo agoI'll indulge your straw man because it's actually pretty good at illustrating my point. 99.9% of people are not psychopaths. But you only need .1% of people to be psychopaths. In a world where you get $5 and no threat of prosecution for stabbing people, you can bet that there will be extremely efficient and effective stabbing companies run by those psychopaths. Even normal people who don't like stabbing others would see the psychopaths getting rich and think to themselves "well, everyone's getting stabbed anyway, I might as well make some money too". That's what a race to the bottom is. And that's why the government regulates stabbing.