Item — HN Reader

Thats defeatist. We have labels for organic food, so why not have something certified asshole-free? You know, a certificate for ethical behavior or something.

I'm only glad that he really looks like the asshole he is (and so does weev btw.). At least you can still trust your gut instincts.

1 comments

That kind of labelling is never going to happen. But really it has always been the wrong way round. For example, you shouldn't really need to have "dolphin friendly tuna" anymore than "kitten friendly chocolate". If a company spends millions on marketing but does horrible things it is incredibly disineguous. Having unethical practices and not telling customers is like selling vegetarian food which contains animal products.

I wouldn't count on that. In the financial market, its already happening. You can buy information from a ratings agency that assesses a companies ethical behavior. If they don't meet the investor's targets, they won't invest in that stock.

I could see that happening on a consumer level as well, all you need is that data and a smartphone.

I agree with you in that any attribute which an investor is interested in can be certified by an agency willing to do the legwork.

However what I do wonder is how actually effective something so ambiguous is? and how much it would be gamed? This is after 2007-2008 when we find out that financial institutions were able to game the risk classification of investment vehicles despite being wrapped in supposedly ambiguity-busting red-tape.

Well there are standards that can be checked against, and they go to the companies and talk to them. The good ones often already have CSR departments.

If theres something shady happening, it is often not hard to find - there are lots of environmentalists and NGOs that regularly dig up dirt. Also, a company can't just fake a reputation.

Not saying that nothing can be hidden, but its not just bits and bytes and paperwork that can be faked, its the real world.

It could just as easily be banned on a consumer level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws

Wow, thats horrible. The US needs an organization that goes after the careers of politicians that pass those kinds of laws, thats the only way to stop them.

Still, there must be ways to protect such information as freedom of speech?

> "The US needs an organization that goes after the careers of politicians that pass those kinds of laws, thats the only way to stop them."

We have many of them, and we used to have more: journalists and news organizations. The press is supposed to serve as a very wide barrier against gross abuses.

But of course, we - not just politicians, but all of us - have spent the last few decades throwing our wallets at the least journalistic news outlets and away from the ones conducting actual investigation and reporting.

We very much made the bed we are sleeping in right now.

> The US needs an organization that goes after the careers of politicians that pass those kinds of laws, thats the only way to stop them.

We have them (or have had them -- they are hard to keep together because interest doesn't remain intense) -- formed of the people opposed to the laws.

We also have organizations -- much better-funded, and that stay together better, because the interest is more concentrated and wealthy -- that go after the careers of politicians that refuse to pass those kinds of laws.