> Not sure what this means

That's quite a statement.

> I think you meant to write "fiduciary duty"

No, our responsibilities go far beyond fiduciary duties. You can see what Google did in this case, for example, or Apple's extraordinary investment in engineering for privacy a "human right", per Apple - far more than its users grasp or could understand.

> the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact.

That's a theory of the ~1980s that people who suffer from its consequences still seem to latch onto - perhaps it's simplicity is appealing, maybe its algorithmic decision-making appeals to the IT world - but not true.

Even now, when such things are at historical extremes, corporations take into account other issues. Not long ago, DEI and ESG were widely accepted and practiced.

▲

hackyhacky 18 hours ago | parent [-]

> or Apple's extraordinary investment in engineering for privacy

It's easy for a company to build privacy-related features, if those features help sell products. But you are kidding yourself if you think Apple is willing to sacrifice billions of dollars for a "moral good".

I'm not saying (publicly traded) companies never act morally. I am saying that given a choice, they will always choose profits over morality.

> Not long ago, DEI and ESG were widely accepted and practiced.

And how much difference did they actually make? Studies show not much. It's performative posturing to improve the company's image in pursuit of profits, not a real moral stand. How does Raytheon putting a rainbow in their advertising for one month a year help anyone? And as soon as they feel the cultural tide shift, they drop those policies like a hot potato.

> That's a theory

Not a theory. It's literally the law.

	▲	deaux 12 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Not a theory. It's literally the law. It is not, which is why you've failed to show that law, or indeed any cases in the last 50 years of companies having been successfully sued for such a thing. It's honestly so obvious that this couldn't be the law that I can't assume good faith here. It's completely untenable as a principle, it wouldn't be possible to run a business if it were the law. Imagine what that law would look like. Would it be short term profit maximization? Would it be long term? What would that term be? You're literally saying that there's a law that would ask judges to decide whether business decision X maximizes Y-term profit. A child could see how that would be impossible. It's asking for a fortune teller on a subject that is inherently very volatile. The whole point of running a business is believing that you can make decisions that you think are right to succeed. If this were real, you'd genuinely see companies running from the US because it'd be untenable to run a business there. This is the worst case of FUD I've seen on HN bar none, because it's one person being so persistent about a complete myth.
	▲	mmooss 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> It's easy for a company to build privacy-related features, if those features help sell products. As I said in the GP, Apple's engineering investment in privacy is far beyond what customers understand and what helps sales. Lots of companies simply add the word 'privacy' to their marketing and do nothing about it that has an impact ('we use 256-bit encryption to protect your data!' seems popular on websites). > And how much difference did they actually make? Studies show not much. Which studies?