[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence#Paper...
You've referenced engagement first, but then, you've ignored about it in your conclusion. That is, as long as the inflow counters the outflow of participants, the situation will not improve or will even worsen - just as we've experienced in the last decade.
Have you seen the truly awesome GPT3 authored navy seal copypasta?
Perhaps twitter will eventually be autonomous machines throwing vicious and brilliant insults at each other.
On Facebook, I think the only reasonable way to use it is to create groups and only debate within them. Also private messages, but only 1:1.
We revel in the adrenaline that chasing numbers provides yet rarely ponder the destructive nature of achieving those numbers.
Science fiction is pretty much always just about things that already happened. “What if we maximized a non-human value?” is just a subconsciously repressed way of asking “Did anyone notice we’ve been maximizing non-human values for a couple hundred years?”
Things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law happen regardless of political regime or economical system. In different situations they take different forms: in capitalism, companies try to maximize (short-term) (perceived) shareholder value; in socialism, they try to maximize the favor of the ruling party. In capitalism, your values are important proportionally to how much money you have; in socialism proportionally to how good political connections you have. In capitalism, sometimes people starve to death; in socialism, sometimes people starve to death.
The world has many problems, but lack of military dictatorships controlled by a communist party is not one of them.
Of course, unless you meant "actually, true socialism has never been tried yet". In which case, sure, as a rule of thumb, imaginary countries do not suffer from real problems (unless the plot demands it).
Expanding on a topic necessarily encompasses a superset of cases such as the contrast provided
There's N.Korea, but that's not controlled by a communist party. It's notionally controlled by people who call themselves Communist, but they don't appear to do anything ideologically communist.
World politics isn't my strong point, where did you have in mind?
I note that your structure was "in capitalism, {capitalist ideological outcome, those with capital own the means of production and leech off the value of others labour}; in socialism, {activity directly opposed to socialist ideology}".
I'd say 99%, at least, of companies are run under capitalist ideology; to accrue wealth for the owners. So why blame socialism for the upshot of capitalist activity.
New factory, with athletic courts (and maybe a stage/multipurpose hall?) for the workers: https://dprktoday.com/content/great/4/sajin/image/2020-05-02...
Kids wearing red kerchiefs in botanic: https://dprktoday.com/photos/18301
Inspecting big industrial things: https://dprktoday.com/photos/18390
Party meetings (other pics show voting by holding up cards, but the colours don't seem very distinct to me): https://dprktoday.com/photos/15113
Ski resorts: https://dprktoday.com/news/43327
Doctor's outfit, multi-ethnic star: https://dprktoday.com/photos/18257
Rods instead of chains on swing sets: https://dprktoday.com/content//photo/2020/20200527-03-1.jpg
Makeup only in demure colours: https://dprktoday.com/content//photo/2020/20200527-01-2.jpg
Apartment blocks: https://dprktoday.com/content//photo/2020/20200318-01-1.jpg
Karaoke (was this actually soviet, or only post-soviet?): https://dprktoday.com/content//photo/2020/20200418-01-2.jpg
Comrades painting: https://dprktoday.com/content//photo/2020/20200502-02-2.jpg
Gender-balanced propaganda statues: https://dprktoday.com/content//photo/2020/20200421-pt18041-1...
"75 years victory"?: https://dprktoday.com/content//photo/2020/20200318-pt17942-3...
[1] traceroute is useless these days, and its whois registrar appears to be chinese.
Bonus /r/fullcommunism: "let's study" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukBcC-sK3wQ Unless they're trolling hard with the english subs, the chorus is about studying for a better future. I know grades were important for early selection in the Young Pioneers, but can't immediately think of such a swotty song in the soviet catalogue (choreography and backing band, however, is spot on). Closest I manage at the moment is the educational background of the main characters in the movie "Three Plus Two."
For instance, I consider "Девушки фабричные" to have been a soviet trope (an image search reveals factory girls existed in the west as well, but don't seem to have been so frequently propagandised) and sure enough, here they are in the DPRK, even clasically at textile machines:
https://dprktoday.com/content//photo/2020/20200309-pt17906-1...
https://dprktoday.com/content//photo/2020/20200112-pt17518-2...
(among the machines I spotted on the site is a mask-making machine. Covid is a common denominator this year.)
This "corporations should be cynical sociopaths" idea is even newer than the limited liability corporate form, which is itself a modern invention.
Before the current era of hyper-institutionalization and hyper-legalism there was a concept called "natural law". It basically meant morality, as understood at the time.
When society is prejudiced against a group (not the fake prejudice that society complains about - major broadcasters like Fox and CNN are both probably championing groups who have plenty of support from society, but maybe other groups are actually marginalised but it wouldn't be broadly OK to say it if they were) then it's not society's moral code that helps them (if anything it hurts them), it's businesses that only care about money who will still deal with them.
Most argue that subconscious bias and wealth inequality due to historical reasons are a significant part of discrimination. I've not met someone 'anti-discrimination' who believes there is a deep conspiracy of people working to instill discrimination across society.
In modern times in the western world, conspiratorial sort of discrimination seems to me to occur more in pockets or if the culture of an organisation goes bad and festers. But it's rarely overt or widespread. More subtle and nuanced forms of discrimination are still everpresent of course, but everyone I discuss and work with in these issues knows this all too well.
The idea of "maximize shareholder value" didn't really kick off until the 80's, and it's been an absolute disaster for the country ever since.
1) Shareholders 2) Debt-holders and financiers 3) Executives 4) Suppliers 5) Customers 6) Staff
... and may have a charter or mission, or even an established culture which sets guiding principles.
Various forms of legal power (ownership, right to collectively bargain, fiduciary/oversight responsibility, first rights to assets on liquidation), social power, market power (price negotiation), and individual intention (everyone, even bankers make decisions based on something other than just money) form, a kind of dynamic equilibrium.
So a company is going to end up being or doing whatever the combined weighted intentions of those forces imply.
It's not 'shareholders' that can do anything willy nilly. Sometimes customers have all of the power and indirectly dictate everything. Inversely maybe buyers do: Apple is a dictator to many of its suppliers. Sometimes Unions run the show or have incredible influence (auto industry, government), sometimes the debtors. Sometimes the 'CEO' particularly a founder even without 'majority shares' has considerably more influence than anyone else, with the board afraid to replace them.
A non-profit is almost the same minus shareholders.
Is that what you want, or would you instead prefer that ethical considerations be back on the table?
Edit: I looked at the previous replies. All of this talk of 'society' this and 'we' that is of no use whatsoever when you are talking about global phenomena and companies like Facebook/Twitter/etc. Under the given circumstances, the ethical questions are much larger. The problem is probably totally intractable.
I somewhat disagree on a generalized form of "altruism is in the individual's interest" (as in "always"), but for ethical behavior, this essentially means that their is no ethical behavior for companies, only a mirroring of the perceived values of customers.
You need very different actions to not tarnish your reputation when you're dealing with very different customers. Since large companies typically do, there would only be very localized ethics, and they could be diametrically opposed (e.g. "expose & hunt down gays" in Riad, "expose & hunt down bigots" in Berkeley). Ethics is the wrong term here, as the company's actions are not based on principles but on the expectations and principles of the environment, their values are reactive.
The principle "do anything of any moral values that brings me value from others' labour" is still a position wrt ethics, though one can't really call it "ethical" without confusion.
Complete moral plasticity according to what "sells" seems to define our age quite well.
Every member of a physical grouping (e.g. neighborhood, community, city, state, etc.) has an ethical responsibility to other members of that group. Organizations, like individuals, are members of a physical group. Therefore organizations have an ethical responsibility to other members of that group.
Those who are granted special privileges by the group have a higher obligation to the group as a result. Ethical responsibility represents one of those obligations. Corporations are granted special privileges such as limited liability, hence they have a higher obligation.
Similarly, those organizations that are granted disproportionate political and economic power, assume disproportionate obligations. With, again, ethical responsibility being one of those obligations. This is the "to whom much is given, much is required" principle. Also, since an organization with disproportionate political and economic power necessarily has a disproportionate impact on a given society, it is entirely reasonable for those granting that power to expect it to be used benevolently.
If that means nothing to you then read the link. Literally killing your own customers to make the line go up isn’t a sound business strategy.