5 ms·

Facebook is a business. Don't be naive. They don't care for poor people, they care about getting money. They are even obligated to do so. Don't expect business

by madez 12y ago

Facebook is a business. Don't be naive. They don't care for poor people, they care about getting money. They are even obligated to do so. Don't expect business to solve all issues for humanity, because they won't. A government is needed to take responsability we don't want to entrust business with and to do necessary things no business wants to do, and it needs to be strong to be able to do it even if business opposes.

user0243 12y ago
> They are even obligated to do so. You might be pleased to hear this is actually not the case :) https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co... As far as businesses solving all issues for humanity, Facebook is (again fortunately) quite a strawman for that argument.
davej 12y ago
Facebook doesn't care about poor people but Facebook is ultimately run by people making decisions and some people care about poor people.
matt4077 12y ago
The are not "obligated to do so". It's a myth that a business can't pursue anything but short-term gains. Executives have a lot of leeway in how they conduct their affairs and the only thing that can stop them is the board, which is often dominated by the founders, a few large investors or the CxOs anyway. Remember "corporations are people, my friend?". If that idea can't be stopped, it should be coopted to imply that companies should behave morally above and beyond what the law requires. If we expect people to volunteer and donate, why not expect the same from corporations? That's not my idea, by the way. It's a trend called "corporate social responsibility". There's also just too much ambiguity between "good business" and "morality" for any hard rules to apply. Is paying workers in poor countries a living wage a waste of money (and thus "illegal") or does it make business sense because it creates employee loyalty & good PR? Is Tim Cook wasting the shareholders' money when Apple spends a few million extra to power their data center with renewable energy or is that good PR, as well as future-proofing your investment? In the case of Google & FB, their size creates a situation where any additional internet user creates so much value for them that it becomes economically viable to spend a significant amount of money to get that user online. In this case, the idea that "cooperations should only care about the bottom line" actually creates the insane situation that people like you argue that companies shouldn't do something simply because it _also_ happens to help people.
- madez 12y ago
  Business might benefit poor people, however, "people like me" say that we can't entrust business to care, nor can we expect them to. I don't think business should care about money first, but life is not about what we wish to be true. Not all obligations are legal. The market puts pressure on business to care about money.
ignoramous 12y ago
And I was sat there thinking .org domains are reserved for non-profits.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Nope, that was the original intention, but it's not been restricted for a long time, if it ever was.
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    I was denied a .net in the mid-90s because I didn't even claim to operate internet infrastructure. Was too honest to add "and local infrastructure" to the usage statement and re-apply.
patrickaljord 12y ago
That's an old debate, are businesses more effective than governments at taking people out of poverty? I don't think people will ever agree on that, I believe businesses are more effective for the simple reason that they create things of value that people want to buy and work for, unlike governments. It could also be said that although businesses primary motive is making money and not helping the poor, a politician's primary motive is getting elected and helping himself, his party, his cronies, his electors and than at the bottom of the list comes the poor. So don't be naive either in believing politicians have better motives and are more efficient at pulling the poor out of misery.
- bottled_poe 12y ago
  > businesses are more effective for the simple reason that they create things of value that people want to buy and work for, unlike governments. Not sure about you, but I can think of a few minor things provided by government which some people might value: 1. Social order 2. A legal system 3. Safety and security services 4. Political representation at a national level 5. An education system 6. Public transportation network 7. Medical services It is absurd to dismiss government as having no value to society. Without government you would barely have a society.
  - patrickaljord 12y ago
    You're right, government does create value, sorry if what I said wasn't very clear. What I meant was the last part of the sentence, private enterprise creates things people want to buy, willingly so, government create things people are forced to buy by law, by the power of guns. As for what you listed, many of these services could be provided by private enterprise and are in many country, successfully so, in fact more so than in the US.
- Trombone12 12y ago
  I agree that (some) people will probably never agree on the government vs private enterprise debate, but I will point out that prior to the welfare state and world war 2 wealth inequality was either high or growing rapidly: these are the historical facts. So from history we learn that private enterprise reduces relative poverty primarily by destroying the capital of the wealthiest, not by distributing or generating wealth in the poorest part of the population. Also to claim that governments that produces such things as the law, education systems, and national defence have no valuable products is a bit odd.
anoncow 12y ago
Since they are a business and are not obligated to do anything for the poor is precisely the reason why internet.org will harm future Zuckerbergs. Internet.org will become a gatekeeper of sorts. This eventual appstorification of the internet should be opposed in my opinion.
pmontra 12y ago
They are not obligated to do so. They are obligated to do what the majority of the shares want to do, even giving all their money away in charity. If the CEO doesn't comply, the board elects a new CEO. Anyway the shareholders usually care about profit, even short term one, so companies as entities usually "care about getting money". By the way, this is a quote from Facebook's IPO letter http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512034517/d287954ds1.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/0001193125120... (it was pretty debated at the time so it's easy to remember it) "[...] we frequently make product decisions that may reduce our short-term revenue or profitability if we believe that the decisions are consistent with our mission and benefit the aggregate user experience and will thereby improve our financial performance over the long term. These decisions may not produce the long-term benefits that we expect, in which case our user growth and engagement, our relationships with developers and advertisers, and our business and results of operations could be harmed." It was easy to write that at the time of the IPO but as shareholder become more institutional I believe that the pressure for short term gains increases. I wonder where Facebook is now.

by madez 12y ago

user0243 12y ago

> They are even obligated to do so. You might be pleased to hear this is actually not the case :) https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co... As far as businesses solving all issues for humanity, Facebook is (again fortunately) quite a strawman for that argument.

davej 12y ago

Facebook doesn't care about poor people but Facebook is ultimately run by people making decisions and some people care about poor people.

matt4077 12y ago

The are not "obligated to do so". It's a myth that a business can't pursue anything but short-term gains. Executives have a lot of leeway in how they conduct their affairs and the only thing that can stop them is the board, which is often dominated by the founders, a few large investors or the CxOs anyway. Remember "corporations are people, my friend?". If that idea can't be stopped, it should be coopted to imply that companies should behave morally above and beyond what the law requires. If we expect people to volunteer and donate, why not expect the same from corporations? That's not my idea, by the way. It's a trend called "corporate social responsibility". There's also just too much ambiguity between "good business" and "morality" for any hard rules to apply. Is paying workers in poor countries a living wage a waste of money (and thus "illegal") or does it make business sense because it creates employee loyalty & good PR? Is Tim Cook wasting the shareholders' money when Apple spends a few million extra to power their data center with renewable energy or is that good PR, as well as future-proofing your investment? In the case of Google & FB, their size creates a situation where any additional internet user creates so much value for them that it becomes economically viable to spend a significant amount of money to get that user online. In this case, the idea that "cooperations should only care about the bottom line" actually creates the insane situation that people like you argue that companies shouldn't do something simply because it _also_ happens to help people.

madez 12y ago
Business might benefit poor people, however, "people like me" say that we can't entrust business to care, nor can we expect them to. I don't think business should care about money first, but life is not about what we wish to be true. Not all obligations are legal. The market puts pressure on business to care about money.

ignoramous 12y ago

And I was sat there thinking .org domains are reserved for non-profits.

icebraining 12y ago
Nope, that was the original intention, but it's not been restricted for a long time, if it ever was.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  I was denied a .net in the mid-90s because I didn't even claim to operate internet infrastructure. Was too honest to add "and local infrastructure" to the usage statement and re-apply.

patrickaljord 12y ago

That's an old debate, are businesses more effective than governments at taking people out of poverty? I don't think people will ever agree on that, I believe businesses are more effective for the simple reason that they create things of value that people want to buy and work for, unlike governments. It could also be said that although businesses primary motive is making money and not helping the poor, a politician's primary motive is getting elected and helping himself, his party, his cronies, his electors and than at the bottom of the list comes the poor. So don't be naive either in believing politicians have better motives and are more efficient at pulling the poor out of misery.

bottled_poe 12y ago
> businesses are more effective for the simple reason that they create things of value that people want to buy and work for, unlike governments. Not sure about you, but I can think of a few minor things provided by government which some people might value: 1. Social order 2. A legal system 3. Safety and security services 4. Political representation at a national level 5. An education system 6. Public transportation network 7. Medical services It is absurd to dismiss government as having no value to society. Without government you would barely have a society.
- patrickaljord 12y ago
  You're right, government does create value, sorry if what I said wasn't very clear. What I meant was the last part of the sentence, private enterprise creates things people want to buy, willingly so, government create things people are forced to buy by law, by the power of guns. As for what you listed, many of these services could be provided by private enterprise and are in many country, successfully so, in fact more so than in the US.
Trombone12 12y ago
I agree that (some) people will probably never agree on the government vs private enterprise debate, but I will point out that prior to the welfare state and world war 2 wealth inequality was either high or growing rapidly: these are the historical facts. So from history we learn that private enterprise reduces relative poverty primarily by destroying the capital of the wealthiest, not by distributing or generating wealth in the poorest part of the population. Also to claim that governments that produces such things as the law, education systems, and national defence have no valuable products is a bit odd.

anoncow 12y ago

Since they are a business and are not obligated to do anything for the poor is precisely the reason why internet.org will harm future Zuckerbergs. Internet.org will become a gatekeeper of sorts. This eventual appstorification of the internet should be opposed in my opinion.

pmontra 12y ago

They are not obligated to do so. They are obligated to do what the majority of the shares want to do, even giving all their money away in charity. If the CEO doesn't comply, the board elects a new CEO. Anyway the shareholders usually care about profit, even short term one, so companies as entities usually "care about getting money". By the way, this is a quote from Facebook's IPO letter http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512034517/d287954ds1.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/0001193125120... (it was pretty debated at the time so it's easy to remember it) "[...] we frequently make product decisions that may reduce our short-term revenue or profitability if we believe that the decisions are consistent with our mission and benefit the aggregate user experience and will thereby improve our financial performance over the long term. These decisions may not produce the long-term benefits that we expect, in which case our user growth and engagement, our relationships with developers and advertisers, and our business and results of operations could be harmed." It was easy to write that at the time of the IPO but as shareholder become more institutional I believe that the pressure for short term gains increases. I wonder where Facebook is now.