/r/selfawarewolves
/r/selfawarewolves
In general I think business is not good or evil. They just operate on law frameworks given to them.
If company can be 30% more efficient by being more "on the edge" of law and regulation, it is more probably going to succeed.
This is why governments must regulate the hell out of everything, because the system itself is not doing it. It should include data protection, unions, environment etc.
Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.
There's also another continuation: "fool me twice - shame on me".
The above was a reference to a rather famous instance of George W Bush fumbling over trying to remember the full quite.
He didn't forget the quote, he realized he was going to say "shame on me" and didn't want to be quoted as saying "shame on me" so was trying to think of something else to say
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Oh. Thx.
The first time I saw the slogan all I could think is "a normal not-evil person doesn't need to make such a disclaimer".
They were already evil at that time so honestly it was refreshingly honest when they dropped it
Except they didn't drop it.
And remember... don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil it's dropped. Telling investors somewhere in the code of conduct is different from being their official motto
No they didn't. Please stop spreading this false rumour.
https://abc.xyz/investor/google-code-of-conduct/
And remember... don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!
That's not their motto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil was specifically removed from their motto in 2015
"Stop spreading this false rumor" and then gets proven wrong by a simple link to Wikipedia found in 5 seconds on google. I'm curious if they own stock in Alphabet, as I wouldn't give a shit about their internal code of ethics when they don't seemingly obey them.
Also "false rumor" is kind of a needless statement. A rumor is false until proven true. Like an "unsolved mystery" is always unsolved, if it was solved, it would not be a mystery.
Lol, how simplistic do you have to be to believe this means anything? First off, you need to believe in good and evil, which are completely arbitrary. And do you think they thought "hmm, we need to start doing evil things do extract more profit... Change the motto so everybody knows! But then we'll pretend to not be evil when confronted about this change..."
Maybe being evil would be to not change the motto and start doing evil acts anyway. Simpler answer is that somebody probably thought it was a stupid thing to have on there in the first place, and was likely thought up by a Cheeto stained LOTR neckbeard.
They started deemphasizing the motto when they became a conglomerate in 2015, and removed it completely in 2018 after employees started getting fired for criticizing Google’s shady dealings with the Customs and Border Protection Agency.
Essentially, the employees argued that Google including “don’t be evil” in their contracts made them ethically obligated to speak up against bad behavior, and they didn’t actually want that. So it appears Google did indeed have a definition of “evil,” and when forced to choose between changing their practice or their definition, they chose the latter.
It's what is known as a canary statement. Taken from when miners used to take canaries into the mines so that the bird would die first if there was toxic gas.
If the canary is dead, something is wrong. Google had it in their mission statement to not do bad things, then that was quietly removed. The canary is dead.
Y’all I found the bad guy
Spoken like a guy who wants to avoid getting in trouble for being a bad person
Google seems a great fit for you
These are not mutually exclusive statements.
That venn diagram would make a functional wheel.
Are you perhaps referring to the myth that the law requires companies to maximize shareholder profits above all else?
Ok I was ready to disparage your link since the domain ends in .ai, but actually that was a decent read and a pretty good argument. I'm glad to have better knowledge of the actual court rulings.
I didn't even look at the URL, to be honest; it was the most layman-friendly and succinct article that was from the last few years that popped up in a quick search, but there's plenty of similar articles from other sources if anyone doubts this one.
There is no law that says they must. But shareholders are justified to fire C suite who don't. And realistically shareholders only care about profits. Therefore they effectively must. Regardless of it not being "law".
Who/Where are these people that believe that? I have heard people say shareholders only care about profits, but I have never heard anyone say it was a law to maximize them. Regardless, they do love profits more than anyone or anything at any company. Companies also like to keep their shareholders happy. Evil comes about becuase of these.
We can and should no longer accept "it's just good business" as justification for morally reprehensible actions.
Accepting it is what makes it good business. We stop accepting it, it costs money and then it's no longer good business.
Business is purely profit driven. We need to make morally wrong things costly. Orders of magnitude more costly than doing the right thing.
Blame the ayer AND fix the game.
While I definitely agree with parts of this, that making it costly to do amoral things would be good, I have to say that the rest is exactly what I'm calling out. By saying that profit is the only goal of business, and that being purely profit-driven is an amoral position, we give the greedy and amoral a tremendous free pass. We blame the victims, consumers, because they continue to support these greedy people with their money, when we should be holding the greedy fully accountable. They are the problem and existing purely for greed is not an amoral state of being. It is quite the opposite, and that is what we must no longer accept.
No offense to you, I don't think you mean any harm by your comment, but it served as a good example of the mindset I am trying to address.
Your mistake is to assign any portion of the action to a corporation. They are a legal entity, sure, but they are an empty vessel. They don't have morals or choice or a conscience. People do. The people doing amoral things are incentivised to do so. They make only a part of the corporation. That's the point. To act as a collective, and as a shield.
Remove the incentive for the individuals and for the entity and the problem disappears. It's not the fault of consumers. It's a fault of the system. Change the system. Consumers can play a part in that, but that doesn't make them to blame.
I am aiming my criticism at the individuals, so we agree on that. I would also love to see the incentives change, but no offense, that's a hand wave. There's nothing actionable in what you said. Standing up and saying no more is action, and something we can accomplish as individuals. Change comes from people, not from systems. Systems can only change once the people change.
Well regulations try to do that but somehow they’re always one step ahead 🧐
(with well placed dollars, to the politicians, supposed to set those regulations, "just weaken this corner here, bud, here's a small percentage of the profits we will make if you do that")
Ah, so that's why they changed their slogan from "don't be evil" to "don't not be a business."
Business can be good for all stakeholders.
That is exactly what he's saying.
Slavery was just business at some point, what kind of justification is this?!
But it wasn’t just business. It was also slavery.
An endeavor that’s just business requires all the people involved to be doing business.
No, businesses are people. Corporations have fought to make that a distinction. So therefore it can be evil. Can’t have it both ways.
Oh Mitt Romney, what a legacy.
Many smaller businesses are good organisations. It's when they grow too big, that moral gets lost.
A business is only as moral as its least moral shareholder. Shareholder Primacy is the law.
No.
For instance, IT is "computer guy", HR is "people controller", finance is "money handler"
Nothing to these people count as a multipurpose object either, when they hear that there is an issue with company WAN, they will expect a help desk worker to pitch in because it is a "computer problem".
Don’t be evil
No one thinks they're the bad guy. That doesn't change the fact that their actions speak for themselves.
Correction. No one but ashe@lemmy.starless.one thinks Google is the bad guy...
And my axe
This is the best summary I could come up with:
You might not expect an antitrust trial focused on Google’s overwhelming dominance in the year 2023 to spend a lot of time talking about Internet Explorer circa 2005.
One exhibit proved particularly interesting: a letter from Google’s then-top lawyer David Drummond, sent on July 22nd, 2005, to Microsoft’s then-general counsel Brad Smith.
Microsoft was tech’s dominant player and a ruthless competitor, Pichai argued, and it was doing an acceptable thing — prioritizing its own products — in a uniquely shady way.
“I realized for the first time the internet would touch most of humanity and it was a once-in-a-generation opportunity.” He quoted Google’s original mission without missing a beat, and said that “if anything, it’s more timeless and relevant than ever before.”
Google uses the rev-share structure to incentivize Android OEMs like Samsung, HTC, and Motorola to promote their devices, he said, and even maintain them better over time.
(When Judge Amit Mehta asked how that worked, Pichai said Google makes some of its rev-share money dependent on devices getting security updates.
The original article contains 1,280 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 87%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
You're not evil, you're just a cunt 🤷
The why’d they remove their evil canary clause from their mission statement
Corporate needs you to find the difference between these two pictures.
Sundari: Lol, obviously the left usess g255 and the right side has g254 in their RGB codes. Can you not tell the difference?
joined four minutes ago
yikers
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
It would be pretty funny for a court to actually determine that a “just business” is synonymous with “doing evil”
save