8 ms·

You should consider dropping that instinct. If you look into how corporations have behaved historically you'd assume evil until proven innocent. Especially US c

You should consider dropping that instinct. If you look into how corporations have behaved historically you'd assume evil until proven innocent. Especially US corps.

Permit 10mo ago
> You should consider dropping that instinct. This is the reason we have people mistakenly repeating the conclusion that AI consumes huge amounts of water comparable to that of entire cities. If you make any other assumption than "I don't know what's happening here and need to learn more" you'll constantly be making these kind of errors. You don't have to have an opinion on every topic. Edit: By the way, I also don't think we should trust big companies indiscriminately. Like, we could have a system for pesticide approval that errs on the side of caution: We only permit pesticides for which there is undisputed evidence that the chemicals do not cause problems for humans/animals/other plants etc.
- christophilus 10mo ago
  Your edit was a good one. It's a rational default position to say, "I'll default to distrusting large corporate scientific literature that tells me neurotoxins on my food aren't a problem." As with any rule of thumb, that one will sometimes land you on the wrong side of history, but my guess is that it will more often than not guide you well if you don't have the time to dive deeper into a subject. I'm not saying all corporations are evil. I'm not saying all corporate science is bad or bunk. But, corporations have a poor track record with this sort of thing, and it's the kind of thing that could obviously have large, negative societal consequences if we get it wrong. This is the category of problem for which the science needs to be clear and overwhelming in favor of a thing before we should allow it.
  - jollyllama 10mo ago
    Indeed. Every rule has an exception but heuristics are useful.
- peppersghost93 10mo ago
  "If you make any other assumption than "I don't know what's happening here and need to learn more" you'll constantly be making these kind of errors. You don't have to have an opinion on every topic." I can do this and still start off by assuming the corporation is in the wrong. The tendency to optimize for profits at the expense of everything else, to ignore all negative externalities is inherent to all American corporations.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > I can do this and still start off by assuming the corporation is in the wrong You really can't. You can start off with a prior that it's more likely the corporation is wrong than not. But if you're assuming your conclusion, you're going to find evidence for what you're looking for. (You see the same thing happen with folks who start off by assuming the government is in the wrong.)
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
  - dmos62 10mo ago
    It might seem like bias will get you to where you're going faster, but at the end of the day it's just bias.
    - peppersghost93 10mo ago
      That bias is well earned. Maybe one day corporations will do enough good things in the world to undo the evil they've perpetuated. I'm not holding my breath.
    - ang_cire 10mo ago
      I have a bias towards not dying, and so far that has steered me away from activities that increase my likelihood of it. Bias is not intrinsically negative (that's prejudice), it just means a preference towards.
- SoftTalker 10mo ago
  "undisputed evidence that the chemicals do not cause problems" Impossible standard. You cannot prove a negative. But, I think it's fair to assume that any chemical that is toxic to plant or insect life is probably something you want to be careful with.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > Impossible standard. You cannot prove a negative It's also a deep incumbency advantage. Of course the guys selling the existing stuff are going to dispute the safety of a competitor.
    - pfdietz 10mo ago
      And when a chemical goes off patent protection and you have a new patented chemical ready to go, it's advantageous to suddenly dis the now public domain entity.
  - jjgreen 10mo ago
    You cannot prove a negative. How about Fermat's last theorem?
    - miltonlost 10mo ago
      Mathematics and scientific proof of negatives are different kinds of proofs.
  - hgomersall 10mo ago
    Nonsense, if we view proving as providing evidence for, then absolutely we can prove a negative. We have our priors, we accumulate evidence, we generate a posterior. At some point we are sufficiently convinced. Don't get hung up on the narrow mathematical definition of prove (c.f. the exception[al case] that proves [tests] the rule), and we're just dandy.
    - drdeca 10mo ago
- pajko 10mo ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yzlsoj/eli5_why_do_datacenters_continuously_use_more/ https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yzlsoj/e...
- CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
  >people mistakenly repeating the conclusion that AI consumes huge amounts of water comparable to that of entire cities Does it not? "We estimate that 1 MWh of energy consumption by a data center requires 7.1 m3 of water." If Microsoft, Amazon and Google are assumed to have ~8000 MW of data centers in the US, that is 1.4M m3 per day. The city of Philadelphia supplies 850K m3 per day. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abfba1/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abfba1/...
  - marcyb5st 10mo ago
    Yeah, but that is for everything. YouTube, Amazon itself, AWS, Azure, GCP, ... not just AI stuff. I mean, it is still a lot of water, but the numbers are not that easy to calculate IMHO
    - seg_lol 10mo ago
      Many if not most data centers are pulling water out of the ground that will never be replaced. The problem is multidimensional, not just volume.
  - baq 10mo ago
    how much is it in burgers and steaks? serious question
    - tobyjsullivan 10mo ago
      Don’t forget cotton. 234 m3 per tonne, of clean water. 25M tonnes per year. => 16M m3 of clean water per day Edit: convert to comparable units
    - CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
      Philadelphia? 80K m3 water for 10K lbs beef per day. But that's not potable water, which is a lot of what data centers are using
  - shadowgovt 10mo ago
    Resource consumption of AI is unclear on two axes: 1) As other commenters have noted: raw numbers. In general, people are taking the resource consumption of new datacenters and attributing 100% of that to "because AI," when the reality is generally that while AI is increasing spend on new infrastructure, data companies are always spending on new infrastructure because of everything they do. 2) Comparative cost. In general, image synthesis takes between 80 and 300 times fewer resources (mostly electricity) per image than human creation does. It turns out a modern digital artist letting their CPU idle and screen on while they muse is soaking significant resources that an AI is using to just synthesize. Granted, this is also not an apples-to-apples comparison because the average AI flow generates dozens of draft images to find the one that is used, but the net resource effect might be less energy spent in total per produced image (on a skew of "more spent by computers" and "less by people").
- gamblor956 10mo ago
  AI does consume huge amounts of water comparable to entire cities. A single AI facility consumes more water than most cities. That AI consumes somewhat less water than cities of millions is not a defense.
  - nradov 10mo ago
    No that's incorrect. Now you're just lying and making things up.
    - gamblor956 10mo ago
      No, that's incorrect. Others have provided citations demonstrating that the big tech AI facilities use more water than cities with populations of 100,000 people. A city is not defined by its size. It is defined by its legal incorporation as a city. There are big cities, and there are small cities, and most cities are on the smaller side. Try again.
- more_corn 10mo ago
  Ai does us a crap-ton of water. Most data centers use closed loop liquid cooling with heat exchangers to water cooling. (At least all the big ones like Google and Amazon do) I’m curious what evidence you think you’ve seen to the contrary. from my side, I used to build data centers and my friends are still in the industry. As of a month ago I’ve had discussions with Google engineers who build data centers regarding their carful navigation of water rights, testing of waste water etc.
  - SV_BubbleTime 10mo ago
    Parent says consume, you write use. I’ve been unclear on this. What datacenter out there is using an open loop cooling system that does not return the water after cooling for other uses? It seems extremely inefficient to have to filter river water over and over then to dump it into the ground so deep it doesn’t go back to getting into an aquifer.
    - jeffbee 10mo ago
      The water that is "used" by data centers is evaporated. That's where it goes. The sky.
      - SV_BubbleTime 10mo ago
        So you are saying it’s an open loop, and can we not calculate when these million of gallons of water are going to come back down?
        jeffbee 10mo ago
        As is always the case when discussing systems, the answer changes depending on where you draw the system boundary. In some cases you would expect water to fall as rain in the same watershed where it was drawn. This is the case for example of water "used by" California rice fields that are irrigated by flood. In other cases, you can expect the water to disappear into a distant system. This would be the case for water drawn from fossil aquifers.
- qarl 10mo ago
  Not at all. NOT AT ALL. There are shades of gray here. But you are absolutely not required to extend benefit of the doubt to entities that have not earned it. That's a recipe for disaster. Personally, I find myself to be incredibly biased against corporations over people. I've met a lot of people in my life, they seem mostly nice if a bit stupid. Well intentioned. Selfish. Are corporations mostly well intentioned? Well, consider that some people tried to put "good intentions" into corporations bylaws and has been viciously resisted. Corporations will happily take everything you have if you accidentally give it to them. Actual human beings aren't like that.
- JDEW 10mo ago
  > …undisputed evidence… do not cause problems… This is unworkable in practice; nothing will ever be completely safe. Instead, we need a public regulatory body that makes reasonable risk/reward tradeoffs when approving necessary chemicals. However, this system breaks down completely when you allow for lobbying and a revolving door between the public and private sectors.
- MSFT_Edging 10mo ago
  AI water usage is pretty bad on a local scale where a large water consumer(Data centers) start sucking up more water than the local table can bear at the expense of the people living there. Even if the general takes seen on water use is wrong, it's correct in that these companies don't have the best in mind for the average person. It's correct that these companies will push limits and avoid accountability. It's correct that they're generally a liability creating a massive bubble and speculation based on an immature tech designed to automate as many careers away as possible without a proposed solution to the newly unemployed besides "deliver fast food" or "die". Despite legally treating corporations as people, there's no consistently enforced mechanism that can punish them like people. Monsanto can't be sent to jail for murder. Their C-Levels will never see a cell the way the average person can have the book thrown at them for comparably minor crimes. Because companies cannot be held accountable legally and effectively, it's important to assume the worst, to generate the public blowback to hold them accountable via lost business.
  - gruez 10mo ago
    >Even if the general takes seen on water use is wrong, it's correct in that these companies don't have the best in mind for the average person. That just sounds more like cope than anything else. eg. "AI companies sucking up all the water might not be a real issue, but I still think they're evil for other reasons".
    - MSFT_Edging 10mo ago
      Buddy no one can buy RAM right now because Ole sammy bought up the useless wafers for datacenters they can't power for 10 years. They don't have your best interest at heart. They're going to willingly nuke the economy before admitting their chatbots aren't the god machine they've been preaching about.
- deanishe 10mo ago
  > We only permit pesticides for which there is undisputed evidence that the chemicals do not cause problems for humans/animals/other plants etc. This is broadly how the EU operates. If companies want to start putting new stuff in/on our food, they first have to demonstrate it's no dangerous. Not the best approach to everything perhaps, but I'd rather not have capitalists freely innovating on my food.
reactordev 10mo ago
Legislatively allowed evil
- bcrosby95 10mo ago
  If the corporate veil, a legislative invention, were abolished or significantly weakened companies would stop acting evil pretty quickly. So yeah, this tracks.
  - samdoesnothing 10mo ago
    This is a gross misunderstanding of what the corporate veil is.
throwaway132448 10mo ago
Perhaps, but it’s much easier to find contrived ways to stay neutral, than take a stance and actually be the change you want to see.
- cindyllm 10mo ago
  [dead]
bombcar 10mo ago
Corporations have to be assumed to be amoral, which means that practically speaking, you can assume they'll tend towards evil. At least you have to continually monitor them as such.
- armonster 10mo ago
  Corporations should be assumed to act in line with their interests, which is the bottom line. "Morality" isn't the lens that you need to try to view them through to understand their intentions and actions. But yes, their motivations pretty much always lay outside of any moral good due to the nature of them.
  - Lutger 10mo ago
    Maybe this is taking it too far, but anyway: corporations don't have any agency. They are not persons. The organization and constellation of interests of corporations may be such that: 1. immoral people (such as psychopaths) will be disproportionately at the helm of large corporations 2. regular people will make immoral decisions, because to do otherwise would be against their own interests or because the consequences / moral impact are hidden from their awareness There is no way to act in life that isn't in some sense moral or political, because it also impacts others and you are always responsible for your what you do (or don't do). And corporations are just a bunch of people doing stuff together. To maintain otherwise is in itself a (im)moral act, intentionally or not, see point 2 above.
    - amelius 10mo ago
      If corporations are not people then why are their ads full of elements that make us feel warm and fuzzy? We're being tricked!
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - jayd16 10mo ago
    Yeah ok, the bear isn't evil but it will still maul you on sight.
NaOH 10mo ago
>Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- CursedSilicon 10mo ago
  >Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
tootie 10mo ago
You can certainly accept a bias against corporations but you still should never assume every accusation is correct. Otherwise you'd be inclined to believe bullshit theories like Moderna wants our kids to have autism.
samdoesnothing 10mo ago
You're right. That's why I never took the Covid vaccine and I convinced everyone I know to avoid it as well. You cannot trust big pharma after all the evil things they've done.

You should consider dropping that instinct. If you look into how corporations have behaved historically you'd assume evil until proven innocent. Especially US corps.

Permit 10mo ago

> You should consider dropping that instinct. This is the reason we have people mistakenly repeating the conclusion that AI consumes huge amounts of water comparable to that of entire cities. If you make any other assumption than "I don't know what's happening here and need to learn more" you'll constantly be making these kind of errors. You don't have to have an opinion on every topic. Edit: By the way, I also don't think we should trust big companies indiscriminately. Like, we could have a system for pesticide approval that errs on the side of caution: We only permit pesticides for which there is undisputed evidence that the chemicals do not cause problems for humans/animals/other plants etc.

christophilus 10mo ago
Your edit was a good one. It's a rational default position to say, "I'll default to distrusting large corporate scientific literature that tells me neurotoxins on my food aren't a problem." As with any rule of thumb, that one will sometimes land you on the wrong side of history, but my guess is that it will more often than not guide you well if you don't have the time to dive deeper into a subject. I'm not saying all corporations are evil. I'm not saying all corporate science is bad or bunk. But, corporations have a poor track record with this sort of thing, and it's the kind of thing that could obviously have large, negative societal consequences if we get it wrong. This is the category of problem for which the science needs to be clear and overwhelming in favor of a thing before we should allow it.
- jollyllama 10mo ago
  Indeed. Every rule has an exception but heuristics are useful.
peppersghost93 10mo ago
"If you make any other assumption than "I don't know what's happening here and need to learn more" you'll constantly be making these kind of errors. You don't have to have an opinion on every topic." I can do this and still start off by assuming the corporation is in the wrong. The tendency to optimize for profits at the expense of everything else, to ignore all negative externalities is inherent to all American corporations.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > I can do this and still start off by assuming the corporation is in the wrong You really can't. You can start off with a prior that it's more likely the corporation is wrong than not. But if you're assuming your conclusion, you're going to find evidence for what you're looking for. (You see the same thing happen with folks who start off by assuming the government is in the wrong.)
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- dmos62 10mo ago
  It might seem like bias will get you to where you're going faster, but at the end of the day it's just bias.
  - peppersghost93 10mo ago
    That bias is well earned. Maybe one day corporations will do enough good things in the world to undo the evil they've perpetuated. I'm not holding my breath.
  - ang_cire 10mo ago
    I have a bias towards not dying, and so far that has steered me away from activities that increase my likelihood of it. Bias is not intrinsically negative (that's prejudice), it just means a preference towards.
SoftTalker 10mo ago
"undisputed evidence that the chemicals do not cause problems" Impossible standard. You cannot prove a negative. But, I think it's fair to assume that any chemical that is toxic to plant or insect life is probably something you want to be careful with.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > Impossible standard. You cannot prove a negative It's also a deep incumbency advantage. Of course the guys selling the existing stuff are going to dispute the safety of a competitor.
  - pfdietz 10mo ago
    And when a chemical goes off patent protection and you have a new patented chemical ready to go, it's advantageous to suddenly dis the now public domain entity.
- jjgreen 10mo ago
  You cannot prove a negative. How about Fermat's last theorem?
  - miltonlost 10mo ago
    Mathematics and scientific proof of negatives are different kinds of proofs.
- hgomersall 10mo ago
  Nonsense, if we view proving as providing evidence for, then absolutely we can prove a negative. We have our priors, we accumulate evidence, we generate a posterior. At some point we are sufficiently convinced. Don't get hung up on the narrow mathematical definition of prove (c.f. the exception[al case] that proves [tests] the rule), and we're just dandy.
  - drdeca 10mo ago
pajko 10mo ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yzlsoj/eli5_why_do_datacenters_continuously_use_more/ https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yzlsoj/e...
CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
>people mistakenly repeating the conclusion that AI consumes huge amounts of water comparable to that of entire cities Does it not? "We estimate that 1 MWh of energy consumption by a data center requires 7.1 m3 of water." If Microsoft, Amazon and Google are assumed to have ~8000 MW of data centers in the US, that is 1.4M m3 per day. The city of Philadelphia supplies 850K m3 per day. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abfba1/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abfba1/...
- marcyb5st 10mo ago
  Yeah, but that is for everything. YouTube, Amazon itself, AWS, Azure, GCP, ... not just AI stuff. I mean, it is still a lot of water, but the numbers are not that easy to calculate IMHO
  - seg_lol 10mo ago
    Many if not most data centers are pulling water out of the ground that will never be replaced. The problem is multidimensional, not just volume.
- baq 10mo ago
  how much is it in burgers and steaks? serious question
  - tobyjsullivan 10mo ago
    Don’t forget cotton. 234 m3 per tonne, of clean water. 25M tonnes per year. => 16M m3 of clean water per day Edit: convert to comparable units
  - CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
    Philadelphia? 80K m3 water for 10K lbs beef per day. But that's not potable water, which is a lot of what data centers are using
- shadowgovt 10mo ago
  Resource consumption of AI is unclear on two axes: 1) As other commenters have noted: raw numbers. In general, people are taking the resource consumption of new datacenters and attributing 100% of that to "because AI," when the reality is generally that while AI is increasing spend on new infrastructure, data companies are always spending on new infrastructure because of everything they do. 2) Comparative cost. In general, image synthesis takes between 80 and 300 times fewer resources (mostly electricity) per image than human creation does. It turns out a modern digital artist letting their CPU idle and screen on while they muse is soaking significant resources that an AI is using to just synthesize. Granted, this is also not an apples-to-apples comparison because the average AI flow generates dozens of draft images to find the one that is used, but the net resource effect might be less energy spent in total per produced image (on a skew of "more spent by computers" and "less by people").
gamblor956 10mo ago
AI does consume huge amounts of water comparable to entire cities. A single AI facility consumes more water than most cities. That AI consumes somewhat less water than cities of millions is not a defense.
- nradov 10mo ago
  No that's incorrect. Now you're just lying and making things up.
  - gamblor956 10mo ago
    No, that's incorrect. Others have provided citations demonstrating that the big tech AI facilities use more water than cities with populations of 100,000 people. A city is not defined by its size. It is defined by its legal incorporation as a city. There are big cities, and there are small cities, and most cities are on the smaller side. Try again.
more_corn 10mo ago
Ai does us a crap-ton of water. Most data centers use closed loop liquid cooling with heat exchangers to water cooling. (At least all the big ones like Google and Amazon do) I’m curious what evidence you think you’ve seen to the contrary. from my side, I used to build data centers and my friends are still in the industry. As of a month ago I’ve had discussions with Google engineers who build data centers regarding their carful navigation of water rights, testing of waste water etc.
- SV_BubbleTime 10mo ago
  Parent says consume, you write use. I’ve been unclear on this. What datacenter out there is using an open loop cooling system that does not return the water after cooling for other uses? It seems extremely inefficient to have to filter river water over and over then to dump it into the ground so deep it doesn’t go back to getting into an aquifer.
  - jeffbee 10mo ago
    The water that is "used" by data centers is evaporated. That's where it goes. The sky.
    - SV_BubbleTime 10mo ago
      So you are saying it’s an open loop, and can we not calculate when these million of gallons of water are going to come back down?
      - jeffbee 10mo ago
        As is always the case when discussing systems, the answer changes depending on where you draw the system boundary. In some cases you would expect water to fall as rain in the same watershed where it was drawn. This is the case for example of water "used by" California rice fields that are irrigated by flood. In other cases, you can expect the water to disappear into a distant system. This would be the case for water drawn from fossil aquifers.
qarl 10mo ago
Not at all. NOT AT ALL. There are shades of gray here. But you are absolutely not required to extend benefit of the doubt to entities that have not earned it. That's a recipe for disaster. Personally, I find myself to be incredibly biased against corporations over people. I've met a lot of people in my life, they seem mostly nice if a bit stupid. Well intentioned. Selfish. Are corporations mostly well intentioned? Well, consider that some people tried to put "good intentions" into corporations bylaws and has been viciously resisted. Corporations will happily take everything you have if you accidentally give it to them. Actual human beings aren't like that.
JDEW 10mo ago
> …undisputed evidence… do not cause problems… This is unworkable in practice; nothing will ever be completely safe. Instead, we need a public regulatory body that makes reasonable risk/reward tradeoffs when approving necessary chemicals. However, this system breaks down completely when you allow for lobbying and a revolving door between the public and private sectors.
MSFT_Edging 10mo ago
AI water usage is pretty bad on a local scale where a large water consumer(Data centers) start sucking up more water than the local table can bear at the expense of the people living there. Even if the general takes seen on water use is wrong, it's correct in that these companies don't have the best in mind for the average person. It's correct that these companies will push limits and avoid accountability. It's correct that they're generally a liability creating a massive bubble and speculation based on an immature tech designed to automate as many careers away as possible without a proposed solution to the newly unemployed besides "deliver fast food" or "die". Despite legally treating corporations as people, there's no consistently enforced mechanism that can punish them like people. Monsanto can't be sent to jail for murder. Their C-Levels will never see a cell the way the average person can have the book thrown at them for comparably minor crimes. Because companies cannot be held accountable legally and effectively, it's important to assume the worst, to generate the public blowback to hold them accountable via lost business.
- gruez 10mo ago
  >Even if the general takes seen on water use is wrong, it's correct in that these companies don't have the best in mind for the average person. That just sounds more like cope than anything else. eg. "AI companies sucking up all the water might not be a real issue, but I still think they're evil for other reasons".
  - MSFT_Edging 10mo ago
    Buddy no one can buy RAM right now because Ole sammy bought up the useless wafers for datacenters they can't power for 10 years. They don't have your best interest at heart. They're going to willingly nuke the economy before admitting their chatbots aren't the god machine they've been preaching about.
deanishe 10mo ago
> We only permit pesticides for which there is undisputed evidence that the chemicals do not cause problems for humans/animals/other plants etc. This is broadly how the EU operates. If companies want to start putting new stuff in/on our food, they first have to demonstrate it's no dangerous. Not the best approach to everything perhaps, but I'd rather not have capitalists freely innovating on my food.

reactordev 10mo ago

Legislatively allowed evil

bcrosby95 10mo ago
If the corporate veil, a legislative invention, were abolished or significantly weakened companies would stop acting evil pretty quickly. So yeah, this tracks.
- samdoesnothing 10mo ago
  This is a gross misunderstanding of what the corporate veil is.

throwaway132448 10mo ago

Perhaps, but it’s much easier to find contrived ways to stay neutral, than take a stance and actually be the change you want to see.

cindyllm 10mo ago
[dead]

bombcar 10mo ago

Corporations have to be assumed to be amoral, which means that practically speaking, you can assume they'll tend towards evil. At least you have to continually monitor them as such.

armonster 10mo ago
Corporations should be assumed to act in line with their interests, which is the bottom line. "Morality" isn't the lens that you need to try to view them through to understand their intentions and actions. But yes, their motivations pretty much always lay outside of any moral good due to the nature of them.
- Lutger 10mo ago
  Maybe this is taking it too far, but anyway: corporations don't have any agency. They are not persons. The organization and constellation of interests of corporations may be such that: 1. immoral people (such as psychopaths) will be disproportionately at the helm of large corporations 2. regular people will make immoral decisions, because to do otherwise would be against their own interests or because the consequences / moral impact are hidden from their awareness There is no way to act in life that isn't in some sense moral or political, because it also impacts others and you are always responsible for your what you do (or don't do). And corporations are just a bunch of people doing stuff together. To maintain otherwise is in itself a (im)moral act, intentionally or not, see point 2 above.
  - amelius 10mo ago
    If corporations are not people then why are their ads full of elements that make us feel warm and fuzzy? We're being tricked!
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- jayd16 10mo ago
  Yeah ok, the bear isn't evil but it will still maul you on sight.

NaOH 10mo ago

>Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

CursedSilicon 10mo ago
>Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tootie 10mo ago

You can certainly accept a bias against corporations but you still should never assume every accusation is correct. Otherwise you'd be inclined to believe bullshit theories like Moderna wants our kids to have autism.

samdoesnothing 10mo ago

You're right. That's why I never took the Covid vaccine and I convinced everyone I know to avoid it as well. You cannot trust big pharma after all the evil things they've done.