Blame free works with humans where you assume good intent.

It's harmful and dangerous with corporations with a proven history of lying and disregard for human lives and well being. Especially ones with a record of developing and optimizing addictive products.

▲

mpalczewski 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

any more "ethical" tobacco company got out competed. result: blame tobacco companies that survived.

People still smoke. any lies the tobacco companies sold to the public were either so old that few alive heard them, or believed them when they were told.

▲

Arainach 2 hours ago | parent [-]

When people or companies do bad things, they're bad even if they get away with them. They should absolutely be blamed.

	▲	adolph an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think I mis-spoke when I wrote "blame-free" because while I come from a psychological-safety inquiry perspective, the term isn't quite descriptive. The purpose of dropping "blame" is that stopping inquiry there without understanding what lead to the "bad thing" leaves a lot of valuable knowledge on the table.

▲

adolph an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This is a interesting point. I gave some thought to the nature of what was being processed. In some ways another New World agricultural product gone industrial, cocoa, brought about some companies that at a minimum rival the tobacco companies for contributions to ultra-processed foods, examples Nestle and Coca-Cola.

Like tobacco, cocoa is not an essential food and also has psychoactive components. Thus companies formed around industrializing the material must develop methods of persuasion and navigate oppositional socio-political pressure. Like the sibling comment's observation that "any more "ethical" tobacco company got out competed," the most successful were especially suited for adopting other food production lines both from an industrial-technical and a socio-political perspective.