• Paradachshund@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    We can and should no longer accept “it’s just good business” as justification for morally reprehensible actions.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year 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.

            • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              “No more” is also a hand wave, lol.

              I’m saying change the incentives. That means fines in multiples of the potential profit. I’m saying fines for individuals, not just companies.

              I’m saying put the bad actors out of business with the fines. So the other companies are incentivised not to do it, or they die.

              I’m saying stand up and say no, so it’s a pr nightmare and loss for companies to encroach on our privacies and rights. I’m saying fines for data breaches. Fines for misusing data. Fines for using our likeness.

              • Paradachshund@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                All I can say is I really agree with your vision, and while I don’t see a path to get there in the current system, especially as individuals, I hope we can.

                • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Fingers crossed. In the technology space, the path for profitability seems to be to restrict competition and competitor traction.

                  Facebook, Google et Al don’t produce a physical product. There is no reason they should be “sticky” as they are. It’s on purpose. They design their products to make it hard to switch from habit and dopamine fixes rather than quality of product. That manipulation should be punishable.

                  I think freedom of movement of data should be a requirement. Including using open standards.

                  We should also have open information. Companies know how much they made in advertising off users. Users should be aware. It might be eye opening and make more people question the service.

      • LavaPlanet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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”)