Is how our system has "sociopathic" corporate design, as explained in the documentary "The Corporation". In other words, by law, public corporations are only allowed to consider the maximum profits for the owners (shareholders). Public interest? Public good? "Doing the right thing"? Not only does none of that have any place, but it's literally illegal, as I understand, for it to be put ahead of the profits.
The assumption seems to be, 'that's ok for corporations to only care about profits; it's up to the political system to put rules in place that keep them operating in the public interest'. Except that the corporations have used their enormous wealth to take control of the political system so that it doesn't put those limits in place, and operates by those corporate profit rules. So it's broken.
(In theory, private companies could decide to care more about 'the public good', but in practice that doesn't seem to happen much, for both competitive reasons and owners' desires. The largest in the US, Cargill, has been named "Worst Company in the World", a massive polluter; the second largest is Koch - enough said, another major polluter.)
This was shown with this Twitter purchase. There is a 'public interest' in the role of Twitter as a very important part of our political culture - not enough that it was regulated as a public entity like voting, but enough where there was a balance that its board of directors got some public pressure and took some measures like restricting some misinformation and banning egregious rulebreakers like trump.
It seems clear that the board of directors saw a threat to this public good from Musk purchasing the company; evidenced by their creating a poison pill to try to prevent his purchase. The staff of the company has expressed great concern about the purchase. But none of that matters. The board was required to do what was profitable, and sell, or be faced with being sued for not doing what was most profitable, so they had to sell.
That's a pretty broken system, in terms of 'the public good' having any power, with instead corporations having to care only about what's most profitable. Resulting in an ego-maniac being able to buy a lot of influence in our politics and there's 'nothing we can do about it' except consumer choice.
Doesn't Twitter get section 230 protection?Is how our system has "sociopathic" corporate design, as explained in the documentary "The Corporation". In other words, by law, public corporations are only allowed to consider the maximum profits for the owners (shareholders). Public interest? Public good? "Doing the right thing"? Not only does none of that have any place, but it's literally illegal, as I understand, for it to be put ahead of the profits.
The assumption seems to be, 'that's ok for corporations to only care about profits; it's up to the political system to put rules in place that keep them operating in the public interest'. Except that the corporations have used their enormous wealth to take control of the political system so that it doesn't put those limits in place, and operates by those corporate profit rules. So it's broken.
(In theory, private companies could decide to care more about 'the public good', but in practice that doesn't seem to happen much, for both competitive reasons and owners' desires. The largest in the US, Cargill, has been named "Worst Company in the World", a massive polluter; the second largest is Koch - enough said, another major polluter.)
This was shown with this Twitter purchase. There is a 'public interest' in the role of Twitter as a very important part of our political culture - not enough that it was regulated as a public entity like voting, but enough where there was a balance that its board of directors got some public pressure and took some measures like restricting some misinformation and banning egregious rulebreakers like trump.
It seems clear that the board of directors saw a threat to this public good from Musk purchasing the company; evidenced by their creating a poison pill to try to prevent his purchase. The staff of the company has expressed great concern about the purchase. But none of that matters. The board was required to do what was profitable, and sell, or be faced with being sued for not doing what was most profitable, so they had to sell.
That's a pretty broken system, in terms of 'the public good' having any power, with instead corporations having to care only about what's most profitable. Resulting in an ego-maniac being able to buy a lot of influence in our politics and there's 'nothing we can do about it' except consumer choice.
Ya, it does, but that doesn't contradict my statement.Doesn't Twitter get section 230 protection?
That would contradict your statement that I bolded
Laws require a company to behave morally. The market requires a company to behave ethically.
* In theory.
Elon musk purchasing the company is a public good.Is how our system has "sociopathic" corporate design, as explained in the documentary "The Corporation". In other words, by law, public corporations are only allowed to consider the maximum profits for the owners (shareholders). Public interest? Public good? "Doing the right thing"? Not only does none of that have any place, but it's literally illegal, as I understand, for it to be put ahead of the profits.
The assumption seems to be, 'that's ok for corporations to only care about profits; it's up to the political system to put rules in place that keep them operating in the public interest'. Except that the corporations have used their enormous wealth to take control of the political system so that it doesn't put those limits in place, and operates by those corporate profit rules. So it's broken.
(In theory, private companies could decide to care more about 'the public good', but in practice that doesn't seem to happen much, for both competitive reasons and owners' desires. The largest in the US, Cargill, has been named "Worst Company in the World", a massive polluter; the second largest is Koch - enough said, another major polluter.)
This was shown with this Twitter purchase. There is a 'public interest' in the role of Twitter as a very important part of our political culture - not enough that it was regulated as a public entity like voting, but enough where there was a balance that its board of directors got some public pressure and took some measures like restricting some misinformation and banning egregious rulebreakers like trump.
It seems clear that the board of directors saw a threat to this public good from Musk purchasing the company; evidenced by their creating a poison pill to try to prevent his purchase. The staff of the company has expressed great concern about the purchase. But none of that matters. The board was required to do what was profitable, and sell, or be faced with being sued for not doing what was most profitable, so they had to sell.
That's a pretty broken system, in terms of 'the public good' having any power, with instead corporations having to care only about what's most profitable. Resulting in an ego-maniac being able to buy a lot of influence in our politics and there's 'nothing we can do about it' except consumer choice.
No, in reality.
In reality, companies and countries get away with a lot that is against the law and unethical. Of course the last part depends on judging what's ethical.
Puff puff pass.
The point is that *systemically* they're required to follow profits and not ethics, however ethics are defined. That ethics are left to democracy and government - which are undermined corporations paying to buy public opinion and elections.In reality, companies and countries get away with a lot that is against the law and unethical. Of course the last part depends on judging what's ethical.
The point is that *systemically* they're required to follow profits and not ethics, however ethics are defined. That ethics are left to democracy and government - which are undermined corporations paying to buy public opinion and elections.
The point is that *systemically* they're required to follow profits and not ethics, however ethics are defined. That ethics are left to democracy and government - which are undermined corporations paying to buy public opinion and elections.
You're right, but I was responding to the comment I quoted without context, reinforcing my point about the systemic issue with profit over public interest.My reply was directed at a comment that you might not have seen.
... laws ... enforce morality. Ethics are, naturally, left to the market.
Please make a good case for both claims?
Laws do exist and are enforced regarding the behavior of companies. They cannot, as pot-headedly stipulated, "do whatever they want".
I'd like to hear how laws enforce morality and the market enforces ethicality.
I do think it's hilarious how the public perception of Twitter has changed from its a social media company that can do as it pleases to a community sure that must act in the good of society.
Your pleas of ignorance are pathetic and the attention you so desperately desire is not forthcoming.
It's so strange that people have to make up manure like that when they're asked to explain something they post on an internet forum that's supposed to be about discussing and debating politics.
Laws do NOT require any morality from companies IMO, other than any morality in the laws themselves, which as I noted, are corrupted by companies influencing our politics; the argument that 'market enforces ethicality' has just a nugget of truth to it with the theory that 'consumer choice' can have ethics as part of its choice, as I posted, but in practice it's a very small influence, as shown by the two top private company examples I listed.I'd like to hear how laws enforce morality and the market enforces ethicality.
That's another big lie - that the massive rise in inequality over the last four decades was somehow the result of the natural workings of the market. Don't buy into that lieLaws require a company to behave morally. The market requires a company to behave ethically. The idea that companies can do whatever they want in the name of profit is childish nonsense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?