612
Netflix Resumes Advertising on X After Elon Musk Controversy
(www.thewrap.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
612 points (93.3% liked)
Technology
57944 readers
3123 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I am so tired of being so disappointed in companies. Was there ever a time when they weren’t just completely soulless? Is there truly no bottom to their ethics?
In school I had to take Business Ethics. The processor officially renamed the course to Ethical Issues in Business, because, as he explained it in class, business has no ethics, but ethical issues arise all the time. I took it to mean that capitalism destroyed humanity, and those of us that are still left humane must deal with ethical issues in a business (ethicless) setting.
I did not take business classes so limited background but if we assume that the US isn’t going to magically transition away from capitalism, we instead have to find a way to legislate a transition to a more ethical capitalism. That phrase seems to be an oxymoron but for things to not keep getting progressively worse I’m thinking we as a society need to figure out a way to make it happen. Any ideas? You seem to have at least taken a course in the matter.
What if we transition away from capitalism non-magically?
I mean that’s probably the preferred path but I can’t see how that realistically happens. There are too many individuals globally with too much to lose that will think their loss of capital is worth bringing down the whole human race. I’m sure they would rather see the world in ashes rather than succeed under an alternate system where they may not be on top.
It’s not even about being on top or being worried about losing status - I’d be fine with giving up what little I have to see a better world. The problem is that a pivot away from capitalism isn’t going to happen without violent revolution, because it would absolutely be met with violent resistance.
I wouldn’t support something that would be guaranteed to thrust my children and grandchildren into a world of chaos, uncertainty, and tragedy that would unavoidably arise during and potentially after a revolution of that scale. And someone has to be holding the levers of power in the end, and how do we guarantee that we don’t just end up shuffling the deck around but playing the exact same game?
It’s easy to be idealistic and say “this isn’t working” but it’s a whole lot harder to convince enough people to dismantle it and deal with the consequences rather than attempt to effect incremental change over a long term.
I think there's a credible case to be made that moving toward socialism has benefits even for the wealthy, and that the change doesn't have to be presented as the end of capitalism.
No, let's not. Or at least let's change it to something better this time, not worse.
Why don't you take a list of countries by quality of life from some point in the past decade or two, and see which nations seem to always top it.
Spoiler: they're the ones with hybrid economies and highly regulated markets.
Yes, capitalist free-market countries almost exclusively. That's the thing I'd rather not have others break.
Do you not know what a "mixed economy" is? Did you even look at a list? Denmark, Norway, Sweden... You think these are "capitalist free-market countries"and that's why they top the list?
The reason those countries are at the top of the list for quality of life is because they have regulations on their markets, and robust social safety nets.
Maybe actually do a few minutes of honest, open minded research about quality of life.
Yes, they obviously are capitalist free-market economies.
Perhaps you should read something like https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730 before going on with this line of conversation? It should cover most of what you seem to be lacking.
For fuck sake. I will repeat my question:
Do you not know what a mixed economy is?
Because no, they are not purely "capitalist free market economies." At all.
Perhaps that bit isn't covered in the one book you've read?
The fuck does that even mean?? Assuming you're just too embarrassed to ask, I'll lay it out for you:
Those Scandinavian countries have mixed economies. The "mixed" in there is referring to a combination of market capitalism and socialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
The markets are highly regulated. Many services that are run by private enterprises in the "free market capitalism" that you're referring to (i.e. Laissez-faire) are instead nationalized, removing the profit motive from services that improve the lives of every citizen. They have very strong social safety nets and universal health care.
It's no coincidence that those nations consistently top those lists.
You know, there was an entire comment after that part that you just completely ignored. Wonder why.
The reason for that is probably not what you think it is.
Anyway, I got into insulting on this thread, which is not what I like to do -- even if it's responding to insults. I removed those comments, and I apologize for them.
No worries, I don't think I even saw them.
Business really has no ethics, and it needs no ethics: its main and only goal is to make money. Government's job is to define the ethics, and create and enforce a framework in which businesses may operate.
The reason why businesses shouldn't be responsible for acting ethically is that being unethical gives you an edge against your competition. So if we let companies have the main responsibility of how to behave, nice companies are penalized.
The framework needs to be as simple and unambiguous as possible, because the more complex it is, the more it penalizes small and starting companies.
The people's job is to define ethics. The government's job is to uphold that definition. Governments can't be expected to define ethics on their own.
This is so fucking immoral it's enraging. As if people aren't involved with business and business doesn't affect people. This psychotic bullshit is how companies end up murdering people and getting away with it. A blatant excuse for people to do whatever their greed compels them to, as if making money suddenly absolves them of any kind of responsibility to their community.
I believe murdering people is illegal, sir.
And that's why capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral.
Amoral, more like.
I know what I said...
(Assuming you aren't misremembering): That honestly sounds like a really shitty professor.
Ethics are 100% a thing and more people need to improve their intelligence in that regard. What you CAN argue is that morality has no place in business (or engineering (or whatever)). But ethics are not morality or the law.
At this point, I think everyone and their mother is aware of the concept of The Trolley Problem. And... that is pertinent for a reason. Are you going to send the metaphorical train careening into marginalized groups, your workers, your board, or even your family? Or, the inverse of that: Are you going to do something that means you can buy your kids really awesome xmas presents, your board new cars, your workers the nice ramen, or even a moment of lessened horror for trans forlk?
And that ignores the various types of ethics. Even under utilitarianism, there are arguments that you are making a better net good for your board... if only because said marginalized groups suffer so much they will barely notice any relenting.
Improved understanding of what ethics actually are helps to understand WHY good (or more likely) bad things are happening. And it helps those who are in a position to make those decisions to make an intelligent and rational, if not necessarily good, decision.
Back in uni, all the engineering majors were required to take Ethics in Engineering. And it was very obvious who were the libertarian tech bros of the future during that course. But it also, honestly, is the most important course I took in undergrad and the one that has the most use.
And, as a result, when I do recruiting trips/lectures, I tend to cover that topic. I have a nice slide deck of some of the latest horrifying late stage capitalism shit to come out of tech companies as well as whistle blowing stories and I go through it with the students to try to make them think about why they are learning while also finding the people who would be fun to work with or mentor more directly.
I didn't say ethics had no place in business, nor that ethics wasn't a thing. I said he renamed it, because business has no ethics. This is the same thing you were saying, but in a lot less words.
I realize words are scary, but maybe read them when you are going to reply to someone? Rather than just assume they must agree with you.
Again, business has ethics. Balancing your fiduciary responsibilities with personal gain (and, in rare instances, societal benefit) is an ethical challenge. Do you choose to strictly follow your contractual/legal responsibilities or do you try to find a way to circumvent that for good or for ill?
Yet again: Ethics are not morality
Lol. Someone woke up on the wrong side of the couch, didn't they?
What you describe isn't business ethics, it's an ethical issues in a business setting. Look, mate. I don't really care that you may disagree or whether you have or don't have good reading comprehension. But leave the reddit anger on reddit. Lemmy is for discourse, not for senseless arguments.
Yes. Embracing ignorance and buzz words rather than understanding how the world actually works and what levers and knobs there are and aren't to work with. THAT is the enlightened standpoint.
Yes that is an ethical challenge. But it's not business. The challenge is how business interacts with that challenge
And that is a distinction without difference
Which... I continue to say that said professor is bad at their jobs. And people who think that matters are the result of that mindset.
Just because you don't understand the difference doesn't mean it isn't there
Capitalism by its nature will carry out unethical behavior if it means profit. So no, business was always soulless. That's why regulation needs to exist, so the penalty for unethical behavior will negate the profit they could make from it.
Ethics never enter the equation. The highest priority in business is capital, and any company at the level of Netflix follows that maxim religiously. They may be seen following progressive trends, but any good they end up doing only stems from it being profitable to do so.
In other words - no, companies have never not been soulless, and it serves us well to always remember that.
Ethics are a luxury that can be sold like any other, but when times get hard and cuts must be made, ethical companies get devoured by those that are not.
This might answer some of your questions: https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/
Would Elon be willing to pay high profile companies to advertise on Xitter to entice others back? Of just give them advertising for free? Or... Resume running ads from customers who cancelled just to change public perception?
I'm not saying Netflix isn't a big enough bag of dicks to start advertising with them again, just contemplating