[amsterdorn]

I don't like this take, companies use this same mentality to justify inaction with their impact on climate change.

Who decides what a "severe" outcome is? The companies themselves? Why don't we hold them to a higher standard?

[layer8]

I was merely pointing out the reality of the situation. Significant penalties generally only come about as a result of prominent cases of substantial harm being inflicted in a way where the causality is not in doubt. People like us here holding companies to higher standards by itself doesn't have that effect. I'm not saying that we shouldn't hold them to higher standards — I certainly do — just that realistically much more will have to happen.

It's similar with climate change. It's just a fact of the matter that people at scale only react as actual consequences become palpable.

[amsterdorn]

I'm not saying your observation is inaccurate, but as a society we _let_ these companies continue to do whatever they want without consequence.

1% of users in a data leak having their identities stolen or 1% of the cities in the world becoming uninhabitable due to heat isn't enough to demand action, what about 10%? Is 25% where we draw the line?

[chii]

> justify inaction with their impact on climate change.

but this is the correct justification. If the customer is the one buying these products that cause climate impact, why is it the sole responsibility of the company to pay the cost of rectification?

In such situations, where externality is problematic, it is up to the gov't to push regulations to prevent it. A carbon capture tax, for example, is one such way.

> Why don't we hold them to a higher standard?

why should companies be held to a higher standard than a person?

[immibis]

> why is it the sole responsibility of the company to pay the cost of rectification?

It isn't - it's the company's responsibility to pass the cost to the customer.

[namaria]

> Why don't we hold them to a higher standard?

That's what imposing a 'severe' outcome would mean. You're using circular logic to be against a statement of facts.

[amsterdorn]

You're mixing up a manually imposed punishment on companies vs exposure/impact, e.g. identity theft.

[harshaxnim]

Of course it's not a likeable take, but it's a grounded one. And it's exactly the reason why companies don't care about climate change either.

[croemer]

Climate change is a terrible analogy because:

a) everyone is impacted by climate change, not just the customers who gave their data

b) climate change has very real consequences for people

[amsterdorn]

How does this explain that it's a bad analogy? Both of these are true and can apply to both.

Read up on the SSN leak from last week, I didn't give them my data. And it can have real consequences.