Instances like this really make me feel that capitalism is devoid of any morality. If there's no law guarding it, a company will abuse its power in order to make more money. It could be a morally good thing, a morally bad thing, it doesn't matter: more money is more money.

It feels heartless. I wish there was a better system.

Of course it is! What system has a heart? Systems are systems, not something that's capable to develop and cultivate and apply empathy. And even then, it could probably be gamed, like any other system. The need for checks and balances in a system is normal. In fact, I use this to judge how humane a system is. Is there a way to express feedback, to enact changes, to revise decisions, to compensate for damages? If so, then it might be not such a bad system. If not really, then that's most likely not a good system.

We have tried systems based on some seemingly absolute moral codex. Some parts of the world are still doing it. Unfortunately it always comes with brutal ways to kill arbitrary groups of people.

Isn’t Warren Buffett’s son using his father’s fortune to hunt and murder Latinos at the southern border?

I'd agree, hence that's why I said I wish there was a better system. I don't know it either. Although it might be an uncomfortable truth for me, capitalism isn't great either, but I do think it's the best system we have.

I'm currently reading a book called "Technofeudalism" by Yanis Varoufakis that investigates things along the lines you've said. My main takeaway so far is "Capitalism" hasn't always been one thing and it has evolved over the years. Capitalism of today isn't the same as the capitalism we had before the oligopolies and cloud giants, and that makes me thing differently about the statement "capitalism isn't great either, but I do think it's the best system we have."

I would highly recommend the book!

You seem to be missing an ethics class. Morality doesn’t have to be like that at all.

So you would say these systems are no true scotsmen?

No. If you go looking, you will find plenty of counter-examples in History. You just made a statement that the top handful of catastrophic examples were representative of the bunch.

You have massive selection bias in your sample. “Morally-based decision ends well” is not exactly something that makes headlines or that is seized upon by historians to explain memorable cataclysmic events.

You don’t need to be an ethics expert to see a difference between moral principles that lead to suffering, and moral principles that don’t.

Waving away all morality in moral nihilism is teenage-level ethical sophistication.

You are carefully trying to stay vague and are avoiding to name even a single counter-example. You are just claiming that my examples are wrong. This is the definition of a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Name one non-capitalistic system more moral than the currently existing ones.

All rankings trying to quantify morality and order societies by it, are consistently topped by social market economies, a form of capitalism.

> Waving away all morality in moral nihilism is teenage-level ethical sophistication.

It is also something I have never done. With the edits to your post, its nature became more and more apologetic to dictatorships. I hope this was not what you have intended.

> With the edits to your post, its nature became more and more apologetic to dictatorships.

What are you talking about?(!)

It looked more and more like you wanted to say that morals are not an "all or nothing" thing from where it is easy to leap to being apologetic to just a little bit of (systematic) wrongdoing. But judging from your reaction, this is not what you were trying to set up.

Not at all. The main thread of my comment(s) was that moral value judgments are extremely prevalent. In fact nothing actually happens in society without someone making a value judgment. And most of the time nothing particularly crazy happens.

It’s easy to point to some barbaric act and say “see, this is what morally motivated policies result in”.

But in reality, moral value judgments are all around us in the most mundane of places. It’s moral value judgments that cause us to have anti-monopoly laws. It’s moral value judgments that cause us to configure tax codes one way or another. It’s moral value judgments that cause us to appreciate the things that capitalism gives us. Etc etc. You can’t escape it.

Capitalism only works with proper regulation to protect the little people. We’ve forgotten that part for quite some time now.

I'd agree. It's hard though, political landscapes change. Well intended companies can also change as they get bigger. I guess in that sense it's all in flux, including capitalism (as it's only enabled through laws and regulations).

Capitalism is a system that inevitably destroys its own guardrails.

> capitalism is devoid of any morality.

That's a category error. Economic and political system don't have morals. Not capitalism, socialism, democracy, autocracy.

Economic and political system should be designed to create incentives where externalities are positive and not negative.

I meant to say the same thing you said.

Note how I didn’t mention capitalism to have bad morals or to be evil. I did say heartless because neglecting morality (good or bad) feels heartless.

Capitalism is absolutely amoral, and has always been.

I'm honestly curious (and adding this as a disclaimer to be clear it's not an attack): why would you think there was any shard of imbued morality when the whole point of the system is based on greed?

No, you see US-headquartered multinationals have a God-given right to freedom, including the freedom to smuggle customer data overseas. God bless America.

This is not how European market operates.

As a consumer, I can't visit every factory to check if the pasta isn't tainted with lead, if the chicken meat isn't full of antibiotics and hormones and if the webapp I am using isn't selling my data.

We have market regulations for reasons. Companies that won't comply should be punished and if it's a repeatable offence they should lose a license to operate in EU.

After you stop using China-made products (https://www.foxconn.com/en-us) made using Taiwan-made products (https://www.tsmc.com/english) made using Dutch-made products (https://www.asml.com/en).

\s, I hope? Not using US-made products is basically impossible in the modern world.

It’s really not. It’s just inconvenient.

There's Bolt where I am from, they are an Estonian company and have better and cheaper services than Uber.

Fair point; I should have clarified I wasn't really talking about Uber, specifically, but about American products (e.g. Windows and MacOS) in general :)

Open source is (usually) free. I’m just saying, if they really wanted to, other countries could build their own shit. They just don’t. :)

The following example isn't a tech product, but it demonstrates the outrageous anticompetitive practices some of these monopolies engage in to suffocate people who are just building their own shit:

Chokepoint Capitalism with Cory Doctorow - FACTUALLY Podcast: https://youtu.be/vluAOGJPPoM?si=zuezwnlUHhuoQFNt&t=2668

Or, how about, if US companies don’t like EU regulations, don’t make money from EU residents. :)

I urge you to read "Technofeudalism" by Yanis Varoufakis or "The Internet Con" by Cory Doctorow to appreciate why this is extremely difficult for consumers and entrepreneurs, and not just an inconvenience.

I think you’re reaching and acting like Americans don't understand the implication, we just don’t consider it something that’s bad. We are allies on a global market and therefore treat you no differently. This is why the US is concerned about data islands with China, but has no problem with European countries and companies with US data.

Clearly the American capitalist strategy is working since all the products you keep regulating are made in the US. I’d welcome Europe to make some alternatives to what the US is providing before you just unilaterally say we’re immoral and wrong, because currently if all the US companies got fed up enough with the regulation and for some reason pulled out of the market it would cripple the digital life you’re used to in Europe.

Revenue has to come from somewhere otherwise a company can’t grow. “Enough revenue to survive” doesn’t incentivize the kind of rapid business development that consistently comes out of the US versus Europe and is just a naive economic worldview. You have to either sell user data, serve ads, or sell the product wholesale or a subscription. Currently the market (including European users) have decided that they’d rather click skip on an ad and have their usage data sold to drive those ads than pay for the product.

> that's not the culture EU has

clearly:

https://www.flossbachvonstorch-researchinstitute.com/fileadm...

I love the mention of "innovation". What innovation? All the areas of innovation that matter to the EU people, the U.S does not have. 0 federal paid holidays, almost non existent maternity leave, encourages unpaid overtime (something that is illegal in most of EU). Innovation in regards to corporations ability to screw over their own people for monetary gain is not something we're interested in, that's the U.S mindset - money and success before anything else, including personal freedom, employee rights, and so forth.

It's almost funny whenever this argument comes up. In most EU countries Uber isn't even the biggest ride hailing provider. In this space and every other, there's plenty of competition that would celebrate if any company left the market. There is no figurative void that would be left behind.

Tease.

I would love it if companies from the U.S.A. left the EU. Not solely for the economic boost it would give local competitors (who have all but shut down when U.S.A. companies came), but also because they clash with our culture in negative ways.

I don’t think this kind of « threat thinking » is true. « We find ways to steal from you and it’s still good for you because otherwise you will be left behind without us ». It’s kinda feels like bullying to me

It's called Colonialism

This is an unconventional usage of "theft" in the "you wouldn't steal a car?" way.

Could you explain how the Uber drivers are worse off due to their data being in the USA?

Well, they are UE citizens (at least a chunk of it).

Following your reasoning, then the whole legislation is moot, and all European citizens data should be sifoned in the US without anyone complaining, because "hey, I'm in the UE so you cannot touch me", no?

I'm mostly objecting to the terminology.

If what they do with data is not "theft" then why this there US laws and contracts to regulate and authorize the use of datas every time I use a new US based service, app, game ? As we see from LLMs, data has value, sometimes probably more than a car. And if it’s worthless, why Uber took the risk in the first place ?

It’s not from us to explain why would drivers be worse. It’s from the one who took the datas to explain why would drivers be better. Because if they would have been better I guess Uber would have done a marketing campaign around it to talk about the benefits instead of doing it this way without anyone noticing.

Not theft indeed, but copy/use of data without consent. How are they worse:

They are now at risk if there is a data leak in the USA. There are higher fines for data leaks in Europe, so they aren't as well protected as before

Do you mind sending us all US citizens’ data? Just a copy, that is.

We don't like the kind of innovation which exploits workers in this way. On this side of the great herring-pond, humans have rights.

What price is it worth paying for innovation? Innovation just means "new", not necessarily good or beneficial. If the innovation is for companies to be able to do anything and treat anyone however they like in order to make large profits for very few people then we don't want that innovation.

Without growing user numbers they lose stock value.

And ideas like Uber aren't hard to copy by local companies.

There was even a time where copy cats were an easy way to get rich.

Copy a US company, wait to get bought by that company. That made the Samwer brothers rich.

Maybe there's innovation somewhere, but putting third world migrants behind the wheel of rental cars isn't it. In any case, there are EU companies to pick up the slack (i.e. Bolt).

> Even though the rules are great, I'm just not sure if it will be good or bad long term for EU.

We can speculate this all we want, but I think it's fair to say with confidence that leaving companies unregulated (or poorly regulated) is bad for everyone in the long term. A slightly different example is the poor enforcement of antitrust laws being one of the reasons we have the tech oligopoly we have today with Apple, Google, Amazon and Meta.

Too much money here to leave it behind. This is a slap on the wrist anyway.

Thats what the Chinese through during the industrial revolution.

Let me know which tech company is willing to leave behind 1/2 to 2/3 of the revenue they make in the USA by quitting the European market.

The analogy to China during the industrial revolution is simply non-applicable, to the point of not being even wrong.

But the west came back for cheap labor so a win for China in the long term

The century of humiliation is a funny name to call a period of winning.

What is the actual innovation of Uber outside of trying to push the competitors out of the market with investor money? (this isn't anything new/innovative either)

We had app based ride hailing services before Uber and still have them so it can't be that. Surge pricing also has existed before them.

Why can't this argument die? What innovation? These practices are those of parasites and leeches and ticks.

But USA companies leaving EU is better for competition - smaller EU-based companies can try to copy the model and do their own thing.

For example, for Uber, lack of it (it took a while to come to some countries) already spawned lots of successful competition.

It's not like building these platforms is hard. They can leave.

All that will happen in that case is that it leaves less competition for companies that provide the same services in the EU.

Of course US companies do more snooping.

The US is where companies from Google, Facebook, and Microsoft to Visa, Mastercard and Equifax are headquartered.

EU-based snooping companies just aren't as good at it, and don't have anywhere near the same scale.

Source?