One can safely assume that the opposite stance to Oracle on any given policy is what is best for Humanity, one can also safely assume that taking a polar opposite position to Oracle on any subject will be the Ethical and moral position.
Evaluating a company to equal good or evil and then judging all statements from them based on that rule leads to a lot of faulty thinking. There are people who have for the last two decades automatically assumed everything Google says is good (false), and everything Microsoft says is bad (also false).
It leads people to fail to recognize that corporations act in self-interest as a whole, as they have one real mission: Profit. It leads people to fail to recognize that corporations are made up of people, who, while influenced by their compensation and bias and culture, do have their own views and opinions. And most importantly, it leads people to fail to recognize that corporations change over time, as their people, culture, and priorities shift.
I am not evaluating a company. I am evaluating Oracle.
>It leads people to fail to recognize that corporations act in self-interest as a whole, as they have one real mission: Profit
and I already address why this is different for Oracle
In this case a leopard certainly has not changed its spots.
They might occasionally be on the right side. It's just coincidence though.
Even a cursory look at how they treat employees, customers, vendors, or anyone really will show this in clear detail that they operate differently then other amoral companies.
Oracle is a special kind of evil IMO
>>>They might occasionally be on the right side.
Name one time they have been on the "right side" I can not. You are correct that a traditional amoral company will sometimes be on the "right side" and sometimes not. Oracle has a perfect record on being on the "wrong side" proving my point above
This might just be a huge list of coincidences :D