Netflix Resumes Advertising on X After Elon Musk Controversy::Netflix has resumed advertising on X following a suspension by the streamer and other brands after Elon Musk promoted an antisemitic post.

  • assembly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    209
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    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?

    • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      136
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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.

      • assembly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • Andy@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          What if we transition away from capitalism non-magically?

          • assembly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • Andy@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

          • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            No, let’s not. Or at least let’s change it to something better this time, not worse.

            • prole@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              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.

              • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Yes, capitalist free-market countries almost exclusively. That’s the thing I’d rather not have others break.

                • prole@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  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.

      • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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.

        • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

        • rambaroo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          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.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        (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.

        • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            11 months ago

            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

            • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.

            • Fal@yiffit.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yes that is an ethical challenge. But it’s not business. The challenge is how business interacts with that challenge

              • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.

                • Fal@yiffit.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Just because you don’t understand the difference doesn’t mean it isn’t there

    • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • MajinBlayze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • maryjayjay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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