Hacker News Reader

Comment by pcthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

I think this is pretty cool too, but um..

> Just because something is done by a massive corporation doesn’t make the thing bad

I don't think anyone was saying this. Some airlines plant trees. That doesn't make planting trees bad.

But massive corporations (with maybe ~1% or fewer exceptions) don't base their practices on anything remotely resembling bad or good, and this leads them to profit-seeking behaviours that harm people on an individual level (which I think is a "bad" thing), as well as the planet, the environment, the economy, their competitors.

McDonalds is not a good or ethical company. The corporate apologism is "so lame".

View on HN

> I don't think anyone was saying this. Some airlines plant trees. That doesn't make planting trees bad.

Then you misunderstood the comment in question. It was quite clearly saying this. We're reading an innocuous blog post, and this person is aping reddit /r/hailcorporate language to vilify a marketing ploy by McDonald's, "exploiting nostalgia blah blah blah."

You're right, they are not a good or ethical company. If it's corporate apologism to disagree with this complaint about "exploitation" of nostalgia, count me in as an apologist too. This doesn't register on the list of corporate misdeeds for me to be mad about. I'm more upset with "flushable wipes" that end up clogging local sewage systems.

It's hard to see what they misunderstood. The comment is about this thing being done by McDonald's rather than "something ... done by a massive corporation". The difference is in the specificity.

The point I get is not that "advertising from any large corporation is Bad" but instead that advertising from a corporation whose operations are Bad is Bad (because that specific corporation is Bad). It reads to me as an uncharitable take that OP is saying "making retro video games is Bad" (because large corporations are Bad) when I read "McDonald's being McDonald's is Bad" (because McDonald's is Bad).

(where Bad = "not good or ethical")

As a plumber flushable wipes have kept several of my service-friends employed-- use more, they've got kids!

You think that finding a way to get food in front of people at the largest possible scale and the lowest possible marginal price hasn't helped anyone at the individual level? In your own words, they don't base their practices on good or bad. Meaning their actions should be statistically uncorrelated with doing help or harm. You can say its not a good or ethical company, but you can also say its not a bad or unethical company either. It just is, and that was kind of the point.

> You think that finding a way to get food in front of people at the largest possible scale and the lowest possible marginal price hasn't helped anyone at the individual level?

I agree with your point. McDonald's value meals have been a staple for low income households for a long time, and from what I hear the app provides daily deals that can mean the difference between someone going hungry or not.

Of all the corporations a person could get mad at, choosing one that is well known for feeding low income families is an odd choice.

The parent comments only criticism was this was done by a large corporation. There is literally no other substance to their comment.

The behaviour you’re describing as profit seeking is also really just value seeking, as in providing something that their customers value. I don’t think there’s substantial moral consequences one way or the other for a company to do this, but there’s nothing wrong with enjoying or commenting on a corporation providing a product that you value.

> don't base their practices on anything remotely resembling bad or good

Exactly - they base it on profit and people who think this is good react accordingly

Their profits pay pensions of the ordinary people. How is that not a good thing?

> I don't think anyone was saying this. Some airlines plant trees. That doesn't make planting trees bad.

I would otherwise be 'on your side' but this is not a great take. Lockheed Martin's profits also help pay for pensions. Phillip-Morris as well. I don't think this makes their business actions a net good.

Lockheed Martin's profits pave way to Pax Americana, unprecedented peaceful period in world history, deter China and Russia and helped getting Saddam, Gaddafi and Miloshevich to justice. It would be a net good to humanity either way.

So therefore anything that produces profits that pays pensions is a good thing? Wow.

Relativism is used as a universal cudgel to reason that some short-term good of limited scope, outweighs a widespread long term bad behavior.

Moral objectivism is more popular than moral relativism.

ie Some good does not outweigh lots of bad.

> Their profits pay pensions of the ordinary people. How is that not a good thing?

It's difficult to take your comment as anything but raw trolling, as it intentionally chooses to strawman limited benefit by ignoring obvious consequence.

Their profits exist solely because they exploit and steal from other ordinary people. Most ordinary people will lose far more money to labour or wage theft than they'll ever gain from profits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com