4 ms·
I never understood this rationalization for what is essentially a corrupt behavior. People find excuses to keep the corrupt system going. I see it as a collecti
by znowi 13y ago
I never understood this rationalization for what is essentially a corrupt behavior. People find excuses to keep the corrupt system going. I see it as a collective madness.
Those companies, being a huge influence on the internet culture and economy, a trend-setter, one might even say the internet gatekeepers - I think they not only should disclose and vehemently oppose any attempts on user rights, but it is their moral obligation to do so.
How is it that individuals and small parties are scrutinized and put down for a single misstep or a character flaw, while enterprises are forgiven, or worse - go unnoticed, for systematic violations of our rights.
Also, keep in mind, that being a big business like Google, inevitably puts you in a close proximity to government and politics. One thing is certain, they do not lobby on our behalf. Though they could. If Google and other giants had a moral compass resembling one of Lavabit or FastMail, perhaps PRISM would fail or never happen.
- devb 13y ago> moral obligation Keep in mind that these companies' only obligations are to their shareholders.
- matthewmcg 13y agoThat refrain, while correct* as a matter of corporate law, increasingly sounds like our era's version of the Nuremberg defense. Also, who is to say that moral behavior isn't in the long term interest of shareholders?
- 300bps 13y agoKeep in mind that these companies' only obligations are to their shareholders Your statement is mostly true but completely hollow. Just because your primary obligation is to your shareholders doesn't mean you go along with (arguably) illegal acts committed by your government that run counter to your users. Because if you do that long enough, your users will leave and you will have screwed your shareholders in an attempt to look out for your shareholders. This is why your comment is hollow. Because it attempts to excuse any behavior that provides short-term gain regardless of mid-term or long-term pain.
- notacoward 13y agoTrue, but that obligation is often misinterpreted. The legally binding definition of "shareholder value" includes more than the short-term stock price. Since bad corporate behavior carries a risk, with potential consequences up to and including a catastrophic loss of custom, it's a liability even when it's perfectly legal and boosts near-term profits. Corporate officers who take on such risk without adequate disclosure or contingency plans can be removed and/or sued for it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/09/how-the-cult-of-shareholder-value-wrecked-american-business http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/09/h...