[lnxg33k1]

It's a matter of if they're the only ones capable of doing that, or if they're holding their spot and subtracting resources from fairer players.. Meta is the main instant messaging app, can offer it for free thanks to stealing data, doing dodgy things and dark patterns etc.etc. Aren't they holding a spot that could instead be occupied by someone else? Who can't compete because it has a conscience? If we accept players like meta, then we have to stay in a society where in order for someone to compete with them, they have to be worse, and so the whole society is worse off because there is meta abusively occupying the main spot. There is nothing special that meta can do that others can't, or haven't but other players have been pushed out of market, due to less access to funds

I am italian no? we have some high tax evasion, people say that in order to compete they can't pay all the taxes, but no one says that they MUST be in business, by staying in business, they hold a spot, and the rest of companies in order to compete have to evade taxes too, we can't settle on companies that are bad for the society, because they hold back companies that can add value and offering the same stuff with better ethics

[robertlagrant]

As I say, ethics claims are tricky here. You may just be reading bad things about current companies from news orgs that get clicks from such stories, and who will never contextualise their moralising into a broader picture. It could be anything.

What I'm responding to is this:

> Meta is useless for society

Which I think I have falsified. You've now changed your position to "Meta is better than a company I can imagine, but Meta doesn't allow to exist", which I think is more accurate.

[lnxg33k1]

What I said is that if we don't annihilate companies that are consistently doing unethical things (hiding studies about the effect of socials on teens, stealing data, selling data, etc. Can we agree these are unethical? Or we need a committee to decide? Is there anything that is definitely unethical, or Meta is getting fined because judges are drunk?)

So yeah let's say judges are not day drinkers and they are continuously fining meta for reasons, is it being once per month fined? Is it consistently unethical?

So it keeps a power spot, it retains users thanks to dark patterns, and unethical algorithms, it holds a dominant position, what I think is that a better company CAN or CANNOT exist, but if Meta is allowed to keep being unethical and holding a dominant position then we would never know

What I say is that we should not annihilate companies who make mistakes.

We should annihilate companies that are consistently unethical (Or day drinking judges, I guess at this point)

And without any cult of holding morality, I don't hold it, I don't want , I don't want to be a dictator, but there are laws, and according to courts Meta is breaking those laws over and over, I am not a messiah, but at a certain point we have to trust the entities whose jobs is to know the law when they say Meta is doing unethical stuff and so are fining it

[robertlagrant]

This was my original post:

> That doesn't mean it should always be applied. We shouldn't be attempting to annihilate companies. Just make sure the fine outweighs the benefit of doing something - just as we would with most fines.

You seem to be agreeing, but given the length of your prose it's hard to tell. Do you disagree?

[lnxg33k1]

I agree in general, disagree in the specificity, so not for meta, not for those companies who are found consistently guilty of something