Well regulations try to do that but somehow they’re always one step ahead 🧐
Comment on Sundar Pichai argues in court that Google isn’t evil, it’s just a business
Paradachshund@lemmy.today 11 months ago
We can and should no longer accept “it’s just good business” as justification for morally reprehensible actions.
some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 11 months ago
LavaPlanet@lemmy.world 11 months ago
(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”)
hitmyspot@aussie.zone 11 months ago
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.
Paradachshund@lemmy.today 11 months ago
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.
hitmyspot@aussie.zone 11 months ago
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.
Paradachshund@lemmy.today 11 months ago
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.