Hacker News Reader

I would guess though that such arguably corrupt structures always emit from the leadership. The way to have a moral company is by having moral leadership. The issue is that there is no incentive for a company to have moral leadership (or not for that matter). It just gets the leadership it gets. If the leadership is into cutting corners, this will radiate out in the form of the mechanisms you mention, where in lower levels people WILL do immoral things not because they're greedy, but because of the compan structures put in place by the people who are.

Ultimately thoug I believe the market corrects for it. We're seeing that right now with Unity. It just takes a lot of time for a bit company like this.

> "greed" is the wrong kind of explanation. [...] A company like DC is a complex, non-sentient system. [...] it has interlocking sets of incentives [...] which collectively and incrementally nudge the behavior of their employees towards unethical shortcuts.

Institutionalised Greed is a form of Complicit Exploitation.

"I was just following orders," is one of the typical apologies.

> This tendency can be temporarily reined in by regulations, civil suits, strong-willed executives and employees, or a company culture that prizes integrity and longer-term results.

These are checks on greed, dishonesty, and cruelty. All that stands between healthy social order and chaos is the social trustworthiness of people.

Nope. Companies don’t make decisions. Humans working for companies do.