6 ms·

That this question even needs to be asked shows how much of the libertarian kool-aid people involved in Silicon Valley culture have been drinking. Of course a f

That this question even needs to be asked shows how much of the libertarian kool-aid people involved in Silicon Valley culture have been drinking. Of course a for profit company is not compatible with ethics (of any flavour). It's in the damn name: 'for profit' not 'for humanity'.

kryptiskt 14y ago
Businesses are run for profit, that is true, but it doesn't say "for profit excluding all other considerations".
- coldtea 14y ago
  No. It just happens.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    Not always. Maximizing profit is good. Sleeping well is good. Optimizing for both is better.
    - coldtea 14y ago
      Oh, you can easily do both. Two ways: 1) you have no conscience. Which also helps you to get into the higher ranks of the company (back stabbing, bullshiting, taking credit for others et al). That puts the right people in position to both maximise profit AND sleep well (because they just don't care). 2) You just do your tiny part, it's the whole company that does the bad. You merely "follow orders" or "do what you have to do". So you sleep well. Like those guards at concentration camps slept well and were perfectly normal people (see "The Banality of Evil". That's how, say, Coca Cola, a perfectly legit company, with people wearing $10,000 dollar suits and smiles, nice, agreeable people, employs thugs to kill workers in Latin American plants when they demand better pay. And they can keep a straight face doing so, because the actual bad doing is happening down the chain and abroad. They just demanded "efficiency" and "stop the problem" that's all. They never said how exactly. http://killercoke.org/ http://killercoke.org/
      - rbanffy 14y ago
        Sigh... Thanks. I was starting to feel optimistic about the world.
- mixedbit 14y ago
  This is true for private companies. Public companies are owned by shareholders and I don't think many of them buy shares because company does some cool stuff, for example supports open standards. Shareholders want profit only, excluding all other considerations. This does not include shareholders that are also employed by the company, they may choose to optimize for something else, not only financial profit.
etherael 14y ago
The more desperate the need the higher the potential to turn a profit, so in a fashion, pursuing the maximum profit is fulfilling the needs of the market. Giving people what they want. Sure, there are sometimes negative externalities, giving people what they want isn't always what they need. At least sometimes, people want stupid things. But enormous world changing products and services which are profitable in line with the extent that they change the world for the better are certainly not necessarily a net negative for humanity, in fact I'd say it's closer to the reverse..
- capisce 14y ago
  The most desperate needs are hunger and thirst, necessary to survive. Doesn't sound like an area were a lot profit can be made though. I'd say the highest potential to turn a profit is from those with the most money to spend frivolously.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - etherael 14y ago
    Possibly, but the market amongst people with a lot of money to spend on frivolities is quite saturated, and by nature any entry you make into that market is easily ignored by your target audience. Contrast it with say an aeroponic backpack which would harvest moisture from the air and cultivate a personal crop of an edible tuber root for aforementioned meeting thirst and hunger needs. Totally speculative of course, but anything of that magnitude which could be pulled off would be an absolutely wild profit maker and would not be prone to being ignored by the just plain old hungry and thirsty target market.
  - ef4 14y ago
    > The most desperate needs are hunger and thirst, necessary to survive. Doesn't sound like an area were a lot profit can be made though. That's just silly. How do you think Monsanto or McDonalds makes their billions? And where are companies like those investing the most heavily and seeing the biggest growth in profits? Not here in the rich west.
cscurmudgeon 14y ago
Who pays for your food?
- PavlovsCat 14y ago
  The sun.
  - cscurmudgeon 14y ago
    Ah. I did not know I was talking to a plant. My bad.
    - PavlovsCat 14y ago
      Whatever I could mention, you could ask "where does that have it from", and the buck stops with the sun. Which is a finite mass of energy burning away, with no sane person dreaming to claim it as their own. The rest is what we do with that. But you're right to bring up plants, I guess we also need minerals, energy isn't everything. But still, I owe no man. I simply don't buy into it, I just accept it for the time being that most everybody else does, and that some get all stabby when you suggest enacting what is actually fact, namely we don't own shit but our time and work.
      - cscurmudgeon 14y ago
        No the buck stops with the fundamental laws of physics. What you are suggesting will quickly devolve into barbarism. E.g., if I build a house, don't I at least have the right to sleep peacefully in it with my family? Suppose I start with raw materials Y, and transform that into X. Are you saying that everyone else has the same rights to X as I have? Then, in that case you don't even own your body. Watch out for my horde of pillagers and looters! :) "I owe no man." Similarly, no other man owes you anything!
        PavlovsCat 14y ago
        What you are suggesting will quickly devolve into barbarism. Contrary to what? You really think a bunch of people owning most of the land makes us more civilized? That this is not barbarism? HEH. Oh, and I also mentioned people owning their time and work, so maybe I should have added "dignity" to that and it would have nipped your strawman right in the bud. I just thought it obvious that I am suggesting something less selfish, not more selfish. I suggest shared ownership of shared resources, born out of taking selfish human delusions less seriously. I suggest a bigger focus on stewardship and less delusions of ownership. But you have a point; this suggestion is not intended for barbarians who think leashes make people better or viable in the first place, just because it's true for them. I simply have no plan for those yet, sorry.
PavlovsCat 14y ago
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36 That we've come to equate "profit" with "financial profit" is telling, but I suspect it's a recent thing. And I agree that all humanity would profit if we focused more on sustainability, doing good work that makes sense, and even (gasp) solidarity -- the less focus on quarterly financial gain and trinkets, the better, the more we all profit :P
bargl 14y ago
I actually think Costco is a good example of maintaining a balance between a profit model (for many years he only got a salary of 350,000 a year). Although he took more from other area's, he pays his employees 11/hr starting off. But to say that 'for profit' is not compatible with ANY ethics then you are 100% wrong. To be a profit company you have to set some ethics aside, but not all. I also work for a company who has a great ethical model. The best companies know how to balance a profit model with an ethic model in order to keep customers, employees, and yourself happy. If you have stakeholders then you are probably fucked... As far as the OP, I think that there are "shades of grey" when it comes to hacktivism. The ideals of a hackers, need to become (IMHO) a little bit more flexible. I believe we need to push companies to be open in a practical way. If Google, ok let's be practical GitHub, release code that was a few versions old then they'd be allowing people to see what they do (to learn) and at the same time maintaining a competitive edge (which is part of what IP is "supposed" to be at it's heart).
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

kryptiskt 14y ago

Businesses are run for profit, that is true, but it doesn't say "for profit excluding all other considerations".

coldtea 14y ago
No. It just happens.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- rbanffy 14y ago
  Not always. Maximizing profit is good. Sleeping well is good. Optimizing for both is better.
  - coldtea 14y ago
    Oh, you can easily do both. Two ways: 1) you have no conscience. Which also helps you to get into the higher ranks of the company (back stabbing, bullshiting, taking credit for others et al). That puts the right people in position to both maximise profit AND sleep well (because they just don't care). 2) You just do your tiny part, it's the whole company that does the bad. You merely "follow orders" or "do what you have to do". So you sleep well. Like those guards at concentration camps slept well and were perfectly normal people (see "The Banality of Evil". That's how, say, Coca Cola, a perfectly legit company, with people wearing $10,000 dollar suits and smiles, nice, agreeable people, employs thugs to kill workers in Latin American plants when they demand better pay. And they can keep a straight face doing so, because the actual bad doing is happening down the chain and abroad. They just demanded "efficiency" and "stop the problem" that's all. They never said how exactly. http://killercoke.org/ http://killercoke.org/
    - rbanffy 14y ago
      Sigh... Thanks. I was starting to feel optimistic about the world.
mixedbit 14y ago
This is true for private companies. Public companies are owned by shareholders and I don't think many of them buy shares because company does some cool stuff, for example supports open standards. Shareholders want profit only, excluding all other considerations. This does not include shareholders that are also employed by the company, they may choose to optimize for something else, not only financial profit.

etherael 14y ago

The more desperate the need the higher the potential to turn a profit, so in a fashion, pursuing the maximum profit is fulfilling the needs of the market. Giving people what they want. Sure, there are sometimes negative externalities, giving people what they want isn't always what they need. At least sometimes, people want stupid things. But enormous world changing products and services which are profitable in line with the extent that they change the world for the better are certainly not necessarily a net negative for humanity, in fact I'd say it's closer to the reverse..

capisce 14y ago
The most desperate needs are hunger and thirst, necessary to survive. Doesn't sound like an area were a lot profit can be made though. I'd say the highest potential to turn a profit is from those with the most money to spend frivolously.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- etherael 14y ago
  Possibly, but the market amongst people with a lot of money to spend on frivolities is quite saturated, and by nature any entry you make into that market is easily ignored by your target audience. Contrast it with say an aeroponic backpack which would harvest moisture from the air and cultivate a personal crop of an edible tuber root for aforementioned meeting thirst and hunger needs. Totally speculative of course, but anything of that magnitude which could be pulled off would be an absolutely wild profit maker and would not be prone to being ignored by the just plain old hungry and thirsty target market.
- ef4 14y ago
  > The most desperate needs are hunger and thirst, necessary to survive. Doesn't sound like an area were a lot profit can be made though. That's just silly. How do you think Monsanto or McDonalds makes their billions? And where are companies like those investing the most heavily and seeing the biggest growth in profits? Not here in the rich west.

cscurmudgeon 14y ago

Who pays for your food?

PavlovsCat 14y ago
The sun.
- cscurmudgeon 14y ago
  Ah. I did not know I was talking to a plant. My bad.
  - PavlovsCat 14y ago
    Whatever I could mention, you could ask "where does that have it from", and the buck stops with the sun. Which is a finite mass of energy burning away, with no sane person dreaming to claim it as their own. The rest is what we do with that. But you're right to bring up plants, I guess we also need minerals, energy isn't everything. But still, I owe no man. I simply don't buy into it, I just accept it for the time being that most everybody else does, and that some get all stabby when you suggest enacting what is actually fact, namely we don't own shit but our time and work.
    - cscurmudgeon 14y ago
      No the buck stops with the fundamental laws of physics. What you are suggesting will quickly devolve into barbarism. E.g., if I build a house, don't I at least have the right to sleep peacefully in it with my family? Suppose I start with raw materials Y, and transform that into X. Are you saying that everyone else has the same rights to X as I have? Then, in that case you don't even own your body. Watch out for my horde of pillagers and looters! :) "I owe no man." Similarly, no other man owes you anything!
      - PavlovsCat 14y ago
        What you are suggesting will quickly devolve into barbarism. Contrary to what? You really think a bunch of people owning most of the land makes us more civilized? That this is not barbarism? HEH. Oh, and I also mentioned people owning their time and work, so maybe I should have added "dignity" to that and it would have nipped your strawman right in the bud. I just thought it obvious that I am suggesting something less selfish, not more selfish. I suggest shared ownership of shared resources, born out of taking selfish human delusions less seriously. I suggest a bigger focus on stewardship and less delusions of ownership. But you have a point; this suggestion is not intended for barbarians who think leashes make people better or viable in the first place, just because it's true for them. I simply have no plan for those yet, sorry.

PavlovsCat 14y ago

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36 That we've come to equate "profit" with "financial profit" is telling, but I suspect it's a recent thing. And I agree that all humanity would profit if we focused more on sustainability, doing good work that makes sense, and even (gasp) solidarity -- the less focus on quarterly financial gain and trinkets, the better, the more we all profit :P

bargl 14y ago

I actually think Costco is a good example of maintaining a balance between a profit model (for many years he only got a salary of 350,000 a year). Although he took more from other area's, he pays his employees 11/hr starting off. But to say that 'for profit' is not compatible with ANY ethics then you are 100% wrong. To be a profit company you have to set some ethics aside, but not all. I also work for a company who has a great ethical model. The best companies know how to balance a profit model with an ethic model in order to keep customers, employees, and yourself happy. If you have stakeholders then you are probably fucked... As far as the OP, I think that there are "shades of grey" when it comes to hacktivism. The ideals of a hackers, need to become (IMHO) a little bit more flexible. I believe we need to push companies to be open in a practical way. If Google, ok let's be practical GitHub, release code that was a few versions old then they'd be allowing people to see what they do (to learn) and at the same time maintaining a competitive edge (which is part of what IP is "supposed" to be at it's heart).

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]