The Perks Are Great, Just Don’t Ask What We Do

My friend works at Spokeo. If you don't know about them they are basically a people search engine. He keeps asking me to work there, but I just cant get over the moral implications of scrapping peoples lives and putting it up for viewing for a price. Something about the product just scratches me wrong so I haven't applied. It is really too bad as their tech seems solid and the offices are amazing.

Here are some citations.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-58.pdf

https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Guidance-for-Examiners-and-Ma...

Just look up "sham transaction" for plenty more. It's a very well established concept and doctrine. Nobody should be splitting hairs about avoiding vs. evading taxes, or generally pontificating about fiduciary duty, without understanding it.

Sure, and that's the general idea I got too. My response was really meant to outline that there wasn't much concrete to discuss there, but I think there could be. For example, are we using bad as synonymous for illegal, or are we extending it to include non-illegal but generally frowned upon (at least the those that frequent here) behavior, such as issues to do with privacy or strong-arm tactics? Additionally, to cut through the media and perception of behavior, it would be interesting to explore what percentage of the company, by employee count, division, revenue or profit, has been party to the bad behavior we're talking about, and how high in the company structure were they?

Put another way, I think they are definitely very interesting to look at, but I'm not sure whether they are as relevant to look at in a discussion about bad corporate behavior without exploring some of these topics. As such, I'm just doing my best to try to entice people into what I think is a more interesting conversation in this sub-thread. :)

Yeah, understanding the other side is difficult.

I'll try to explain the other side, but it probably won't make sense to you. (as your side makes no sense to me) The trouble is that people can have fundamentally different value systems, priorities, and fears.

Maybe the best way to explain it is to say how you appear to the other side. I'm sure you will disagree, which is kind of the point.

You look kind of naïve and childish. You appear to believe in some utopian fantasy where all people are good and have or can be converted to a value system that is like your own, with the possible exception of conservatives. You fail to make any effort to protect your nation and culture from being overrun by the brutish, violent, and lazy. You somehow imagine that people from places like Syria and Mexico make better neighbors than many of the conservative people in your own country. Basically, your views fail at self-preservation. You are in denial of the historic fact that every nation is built upon a hill of skulls, and the fact that this is the natural way of nature. You imagine that you can refuse to pile up skulls without becoming part of the pile.

If your world were real, I'd rather live in it. I'm not going to deny reality just because I don't like it. Conflict is eternal. I prefer that my people win.

It's actually unethical to avoid the conflict. You're ceding ground to the enemy. You let down your descendants, friends, and neighbors. They will be impovershed, killed, and -- as we've seen with ISIS -- enslaved. This shit really happens. It may take decades or even centuries, but every bit of inaction and appeasement brings that day closer.

For some reason, you push risk and long-term bad consequences out of your mind. It's like you can't see them. You focus on the positive only, kind of like a gambler.

Your optimism probably makes you a happier person. :-)

> Because the "is currently doing" is predicated on a path to success that rested on "has done in the past"

Upon closer reading of the original statement, I agree. I think the core point I wasn't accounting for is "every nation". If every example includes an attribute, then it's not logical to assume the next item won't.

> I disagree with the lackadaisical presentation of this sort of corporate behavior as something which, by-and-by, people should let slide, so why worry about it?

Are they letting it slide? The Google pharmaceuticals ads scandal was resolved with Google forfeiting the gross revenue of the program to the tune of 500 million. That can be interpreted multiple ways, depending on whether you believe that was an adequate punishment, or whether you think that could have been a learning experience. Is having the government punish Google, given their mandate by the people to police this, sufficient to consider it accounted for? Does the bank robber who gets out of jail after 10-15 years still deserved to be ostracized by the community, or has the punishment already been paid?

> Furthermore, a young person is comprised (by definition) of a single young person. A young company can sometimes be made up of young people. However, a young company can also be made up of seasoned, cynical people who take seriously the attitude of doing bad when it helps you succeed, and well, maybe some good when you can afford to later on.

I wasn't trying to focus on young vs old in company or employee age, but that time can cause change in a person as well as a company (it's entirely possible 10 years on that a company may not share a single employee or board member with the prior incarnation). This is the Theseus' Paradox[1] applied to corporate entities, past behavior, and current standing.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus