Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's not a crime if we do it with an app

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 640 posts

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#431

Post by mrweasel »

arcbyte wrote: post #182
dartos wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's because most crimes "individuals" do are straightforwardly illegal and easy to prosecute, whereas the "crime if a corporation does it" are not Maybe that’s something that should be adjusted by a legislative body. Crimes are only “easy” or “difficult” to prosecute because of the laws as they’re written.

Most crimes done by individuals are intentional. That is most often not the case with corporations. Intentionality is an important requirement in most crimes. That doest mean that there isn't plenty of room for more centralized civil protections against negligence and recklessness.

I'll disagree with the point that corporate crimes aren't intentional, they most certainly can be. There are plenty of examples of companies deciding that it's more profitable to "do crime" and just pay the fine if caught. Danske Bank famously have a post in their budget to pay fines for breaking banking laws.

The problem is to prove that something is done intentional, on a "corporate level", whatever that means in the given case. Imagine having a law where breaking it would mean that the business have to shutdown. A competitor could pay off someone inside the company to break the law deliberately to have the legal system remove competition.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#432

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #384
brookst wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the ripple effects are much larger. Lay off a few thousand people in most cities and you’re sinking all sorts of businesses that had nothing to do with the crime.

Putting down a corporation doesn't necessarily mean ending a productive operation. Employee or government takeover are options too.

Right, just transfer ownership to the employees and let them decide which leaders to keep around.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#433

Post by eesmith »

Nasrudith wrote: post #333
eesmith wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate that ever since I was a teen in the 80's I've been encouraged by government policy to put my retirement into pension funds which invest in the stock market, thus justifying all manner of immoral and unethical business practices in the name of protecting pensioner savings. I am complicit in a rigged system with no escape.

You would have been dependant upon the market either way. Even if it was a public pension model via taxation guess where the funds would come from? The market. All matters of trade-offs would affect the viability.

Not equally dependent.

Like, with the US privatized medical system and its parasitical medical insurance system, we can see how medical costs are higher and overall health outcomes lower than in countries with single-payer/national health care.

And if I happen to choose a health insurer which decides my cancer treatment is inappropriate, I'm either bankrupt or dead.

Yes, I'm still dependent on healthcare, but one is better aligned to my health.

Similarly, the personal pension system requires staff and/or custom software to handle customer relations, and the individual funds have marketing budget to convince people to join. This disappears with a nationalized system where it can all be part of the same social security system, and benefit from the economy of scale.

Furthermore, companies justify all sorts of unethical practices because they point to all the (abstract) pensioners who will lose their retirement, which relies on those pensioners not being able to say 'no, don't do it in my name.'

While something like the Government Pension Fund of Norway can select funds and influence the corporate governance in a way which is aligned with national goals.

Yes, there are all sort of ethical funds I could invest in. The paradox of choice and my complete lack of expertise means I must hire that expertise, like when I got advice when I set up my account.

Furthermore, if I happen to select green energy stocks, but they go down the toilet after the invention of Mr. Fusion, I'm currently screwed. While a public pension has the mandate of supporting everyone.

Yes, I'm still dependent on stock investemtns, but one is better aligned to my retirement.

Lastly, the government can raise money from taxes. The government can pay for more nurses and doctors, and training hospitals. The government can pay for high-quality retirement housing. The government can do a lot of things that a private pension plan cannot do.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#434

Post by ok_dad »

titanomachy wrote: post #411
ryukoposting wrote: post #383

I will continue to shout this at clouds and hope something changes: As tech industry practicioners, we are some of the only people in the country who have both the desire to affect positive change, AND the agency to do so. Don't work for these companies. If your company does business with these companies, criticize it and encourage your coworkers to do the same.

It's possible that the folks who find themselves working at Potatotrac are not genius leetcoders who can get a new FAANG job anytime they want. They're probably just ordinary people trying to make enough money to buy an occasional $10 potato for their family. Airbnb or Uber, on the other hand...

I guess it's okay to have no morals in a tough situation, even if that is the very point in your life where you prove that you actually have morals.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#435

Post by [deleted] »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #425
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not refute their main point: > They are a part of an economic and social system that makes things in such way. It’s difficult to prove intent but we make that necessary to prove when it doesn’t have to be. It could be that negligence is enough for it to be a crime.

Negligence has the same problem as intent. The difficulty with corporations is that demonstrating anything about their behavior at all (negligence, intent, ignorance, malice, stupidity...) requires doing so for a corporate body, in the sense of that word that refers to a thing visibly composed of many other distinct things. What does a corporation want? What does that question even mean? Was a corporation negligent?…

[deleted]

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#436

Post by steveBK123 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #420
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. The number of drivers needed at any given time is completely variable. It's obviously a larger number during peak travel periods. Suppose number of drivers needed off-peak is 100 and the number needed at the peak is 500 and they have 300 drivers. They need to sign up another 200…

> The number of drivers needed at any given time is completely variable. It's obviously a larger number during peak travel periods. That's Uber's business problem to solve, though, not ours. Sucks to be them. The solution isn't "well, let's make it easier for Uber and screw over their not-employees". The government, the people, are not obligated to ensure profitability is possible for every corporations every idea.

Particularly after operating at a loss for a decade by overpaying drivers and undercharging riders, such that they get a monopoly, squeeze out local competition, and change consumer habits to rely on ridehailing.

Now that they won and are making money, boo hoo the government is being tough on us.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#437

Post by nailer »

> Heritage Foundation economics that insists that monopolies are "efficient"

That’s not correct. The Heritage Foundation does not state that monopolies are efficient, their stance on antitrust laws and monopolies emphasizes *consumer welfare and economic efficiency* over simply protecting smaller businesses or achieving other social goals

https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/antitr...

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#438

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

adrr wrote: post #275
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to start seizing IP into the public domain and sending shareholders to jail when their companies misbehave. I'm on the hook if my dog bites somebody, it should be no different if the role of my dog is played by a company. Monetary risk is not a real enough risk.

That would be like you sending the whole family to jail if one of them commits a crime. They are separate legal entities.

No, it would be like sending one or more family members to jail because of what their dog did. If the family can't agree on who is responsible for the dog's behavior on their own, it's not crazy to distribute the sentence to more than one family member.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#439

Post by steveBK123 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #423
gruez wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't recall anyone demanding that. That's seemingly what OP was demanding, given the displeasure he was expressing at uber for the practice. >but back when I worked in restaurants if things were slow I'd be sent home and know when I was expected to be back be that the next day or in time for the dinner rush. I wasn't randomly clocked off for 15-30 minutes, and expected to hang around, then suddenly told I'm back…

> It's the difference between employment vs working as a contractor. That's absolutely NOT the difference between employment and contracting. The general expectation from the IRS is that if you are setting someone's hours (and Uber is, the driver chooses to be available, but within that availability window, Uber can arbitrarily define them as unavailable), then they are an employee. Contractors don't just hang around…

Agreed. These tech companies are all squeezing the definition of contractor for their benefit.

Amazon similarly abuses on-demand contractors and we see this for example in the little popup trailer parks in their distribution center parking lots during holiday crush...

I get it, as a consumer these are nice services to have - but it doesn't mean we have to be OK with these labor conditions. Further, from a self interested point of view, its a slippery slope to Amazon & the rest figuring out how to do the same to their SWEs over time.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#440

Post by mikelitoris »

arcbyte wrote: post #182
dartos wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's because most crimes "individuals" do are straightforwardly illegal and easy to prosecute, whereas the "crime if a corporation does it" are not Maybe that’s something that should be adjusted by a legislative body. Crimes are only “easy” or “difficult” to prosecute because of the laws as they’re written.

Most crimes done by individuals are intentional. That is most often not the case with corporations. Intentionality is an important requirement in most crimes. That doest mean that there isn't plenty of room for more centralized civil protections against negligence and recklessness.

This is a bullshit argument that people in charge of these companies make. How do you know the "thief" that stole merchandise from a store wasn't going to come back to pay for it in an hour? You don't... you just assume the worst, which should be the case for corporations.
Post reply on HN