Hacker News Reader

Comment by smsm42 | Hacker News Reader

>>>> They have an obligation to the shareholders. Turning down paying customers because of some moral objection to pointy objects is a little bit crazy.

Happens all the time. For example, Groupon recently dropped all firearms-related deals on the wave of the craziness that is going on. I, personally, cancelled my account with them the next day and would never buy from them anymore. I am completely certain them and the shareholders don't care too much. Same Google - losing couple of ad dollars from some independent shop is nothing to them. If their deals with Amazon would be under threat that'd probably be different business. And the government probably has absolutely nothing to do with it - if it were government-enforced, it would apply to Amazon too.

View on HN

>Happens all the time. For example, Groupon recently dropped all firearms-related deals on the wave of the craziness that is going on.

That's something else entirely. There is an argument to be made that doing things like that could actually be good for the shareholders, if you assume that a majority of customers are pro- gun control and doing that could get you accolades from them instead of boycotts. Maybe the opposite is true in reality, but at least there is a plausible argument to be made that it could be profitable to take a stance on a political issue.

That doesn't seem to apply in this case. There is no huge anti-knife lobby to pander to. Refusing to sell knives or to associate with knife sellers doesn't get your company published in the liberal press in a positive way. It just gets everybody dumping on you for being an imperfect bureaucracy.

>And the government probably has absolutely nothing to do with it - if it were government-enforced, it would apply to Amazon too.

If the mortgage crisis has taught us anything it's that big companies can get a pass for things that smaller companies wouldn't.

Maybe it's the agency problem. The mid level manager making the decisions is not a shareholder.

>The mid level manager making the decisions is not a shareholder.

They almost certainly are.

>>>> There is no huge anti-knife lobby to pander to.

Apparently, Google disagrees - otherwise why would they have restrictions on it? It is as political as the gun case.

>>>> If the mortgage crisis has taught us anything it's that big companies can get a pass for things that smaller companies wouldn't.

Bailing out a failing bank because it is (supposedly) better for the economy is not exactly the same as suspending advertisement rules or any other trade regulations.

I think what makes this Google case different from the Groupon case is that Groupon applied its rule UNIFORMLY whereas Google in this instance behaved inexcusably: applying one policy to one retailer, and a different policy to everybody else.

I know, I'm just saying turning away customers for political reasons is not as uncommon as the comment above claims.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com