this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
484 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

59086 readers
3431 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheRaven@lemmy.ca 203 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It would be pretty funny for a court to actually determine that a “just business” is synonymous with “doing evil”

[–] doublejay1999@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago

/r/selfawarewolves

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 128 points 1 year ago (24 children)

Can’t fool me, they gave it away when they removed “Don’t be evil” from their motto back in 2015.

[–] FrostyTrichs@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

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".

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 102 points 1 year ago (1 children)

These are not mutually exclusive statements.

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 63 points 1 year ago

That venn diagram would make a functional wheel.

[–] alonely0@programming.dev 74 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A publicly traded company is legally obligated to be evil.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Are you perhaps referring to the myth that the law requires companies to maximize shareholder profits above all else?

[–] Deconceptualist@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 7 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

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".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Boogiepop@lemmy.world 68 points 1 year ago

Is profit at any cost morally irresponsible?

No, it's the consumers who are wrong.

[–] Paradachshund@lemmy.today 58 points 1 year ago (3 children)

We can and should no longer accept "it's just good business" as justification for morally reprehensible actions.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 13 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, so that's why they changed their slogan from "don't be evil" to "don't not be a business."

[–] warmaster@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Google - Business with electrolytes"

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago

It's what shareholders crave

[–] the_q@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Does he not know that business IS evil?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kaibae@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Okay. Google isn’t evil, business is.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Befernafardofo@feddit.it 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Slavery was just business at some point, what kind of justification is this?!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Veraxus@kbin.social 37 points 1 year ago

So… evil.

“That’s not a shit, it’s a doodie!”

[–] m13@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Capitalism is a curse that instills the most evil traits in all of humanity.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Worse; it rewards them.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, businesses are people. Corporations have fought to make that a distinction. So therefore it can be evil. Can’t have it both ways.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RedDoozer@lemmy.zip 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Business are soulless evils

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 year ago

“Hey man, just doing our job to maximize shareholder value”

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Good argument for dismantling Google and any other company of similar size.

[–] spudwart@spudwart.com 23 points 1 year ago

"Nothing ~~Personal~~ evil, Kid"

"Just Business"

[–] nomecks@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

A business is only as moral as its least moral shareholder. Shareholder Primacy is the law.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It can be two things, jackass.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Gingerlegs@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

You can see how one could easily be confused…

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Orioz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Don't. Be evil.

Ifify

[–] Starkstruck@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

No one thinks they're the bad guy. That doesn't change the fact that their actions speak for themselves.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›