Hacker News Reader

Comment by hsuduebc2 | Hacker News Reader

You can't expect that malicious actor would be fighting against malicious actors that are increase shareholder value. Tbh at this point it's governments fault. You can't expect British American Tobacco to fight against smoking. It's not really their job. Their job is increasing said shareholder value.

View on HN

I think it's fair to hold the government to account, but it's good to be cognizant of how entrenched corporatism is in our modern governance.

If your "just increasing shareholder value" is found to cause damages to the public, you should be held to account for that.

Just to be clear, I absolutely agree with you but corporations are made solely to create a profit and it tends to be lower when one is ethical. I would love if these companies act more responsibly, I would be very glad even for bare minimum eg. not causing harm actively but I just don't expect it. Because their sole existence is usually profit. Not public wellbeing. The "Increasing Shareholder value" is a joke because I noticed that some people are using this unironically.

You can't expect me to stop selling crack to kids on the streets. My job is to feed my family.

I would be glad if you didn't do it but I wouldn't expect nothing else from childrens crack dealer.

Tobacco companies are responsible for not promoting to minors.

But if we take a more relevant comparison: In the financial sector, banks are responsible for detecting abuse.

They’re not the only ones responsible, but they don’t get to absolve all responsibility because someone else committed a crime using the banks infrastructure.

People seem to have forgotten how soulless cigarette companies were:

> As a 1984 R.J. Reynolds report stated:1819

> “Younger adult smokers are the only source of replacement smokers… If younger adults turn away from smoking, the industry must decline.”

You’re now talking about ethics of these companies whereas we were talking about their requirements by law.

And the reason those laws existed was precisely because companies couldn’t be trusted to regulate themselves.

I'm curious. Why this is not a relevant comparison? They are intentionally selling something harmful even to children with intent to someone become addicted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com