Hacker News Reader

Comment by india | Hacker News Reader

Google in China, tweeter in Iran and Facebook here have shown three very different responses to local requests for censorship. All three of these have done what they believe to be in the best interests of their business.

As individuals, we don't always do what is in our own personal best interest. We choose to execute what we percieve to be our social responsibilities and we do so, at least in part because the society at large expects this of us. Shouldn't we expect corporates to carry a little bit of social responsibility?

When companies act this way, they further reinforce preference falsification and put local movements for social change years behind. Now the moderate Muslim in Pakistan will find it even more difficult to publicly express her views and this will push the tipping point for a more moderate Islam in Pakistan by quite a few years.

View on HN

I don't think it's ever reasonable to expect a business to do something that is not in their self interest; their existence is predicated upon selfish behavior. When companies take socially conscientious actions that would appear to go against the company's best interest, they are almost always doing so after weighing the relative benefits of increasing public goodwill and maintaining direct profits and finding goodwill to be of greater benefit.

I would argue that the same thing applies to individuals; that no rational actions are truly outside of self-interest, because we do what makes us happy, even if the action itself would appear to be selfless.

A more interesting, if obvious, related question: shouldn't we, through our political representatives, demand that corporations carry a little bit more of social responsibility?

That would be the rational thing for us to demand, since a more liberal Pakistan would make both us and Pakistanis happier. Nowadays it is a matter of corporations' interest rather than law.

I think corporations confuse self interest "short term financial maxima," just as individuals confuse happiness with pleasure.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but haven't courts ruled that corporations must act in the interest of raising money for their shareholders above "social responsibility"? I could be entirely wrong here, so it would be great if someone with more knowledge in this area could speak authoritatively here.

It depends on the corporate charter. Shareholders have the right to have the corporation act in the manner described in the charter, and for most corporations this means maximizing shareholder value.

But not always. Google shareholders do not have the right to have google act evil even if it would have increased their value. A charity is obligated to serve whatever beneficiary group is listed in their charter and can't serve other groups (i.e., no redirecting anti-malaria funds to save the dolphins).

I don't know about you, but I know a lot of individuals who act exclusively in their personal best interest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com