Slate Announces List of The 30 Most Evil Tech Companies (slate.com) 163
An anonymous reader quotes Slate:
Separating out the meaningful threats from the noise is hard. Is Facebook really the danger to democracy it looks like? Is Uber really worse than the system it replaced? Isn't Amazon's same-day delivery worth it? Which harms are real and which are hypothetical? Has the techlash gotten it right? And which of these companies is really the worst? Which ones might be, well, evil?
We don't mean evil in the mustache-twirling, burn-the-world-from-a-secret-lair sense -- well, we mostly don't mean that -- but rather in the way Googlers once swore to avoid mission drift, respect their users, and spurn short-term profiteering, even though the company now regularly faces scandals in which it has violated its users' or workers' trust. We mean ills that outweigh conveniences. We mean temptations and poison pills and unanticipated outcomes.
Slate sent ballots to "a wide range of journalists, scholars, advocates, and others who have been thinking critically about technology for years," and reported that while America's big tech companies topped the list, "our respondents are deeply concerned about foreign companies dabbling in surveillance and A.I., as well as the domestic gunners that power the data-broker business."
But while there were some disagreements, Palantir still rose to #4 on the list because "almost everyone distrusts Peter Thiel."
Interestingly, their list ranks SpaceX at #17 (for potentially disrupting astronomy by clogging the sky with satellites) and ranks Tesla at #14 for "its troubled record of worker safety and its dubious claims that it will soon offer 'full self-driving' to customers who have already paid $7,000 for the promised add-on... Our respondents say the very real social good that Tesla has done by creating safe, zero-emission vehicles does not justify misdeeds, like apparent 'stealth recalls' of defects that appear to violate safety laws or the 19 unresolved Clean Air Act violations at its paint shop."
Slate's article includes its comprehensive list of the 30 most dangerous tech companies. But here's the top 10:
Separating out the meaningful threats from the noise is hard. Is Facebook really the danger to democracy it looks like? Is Uber really worse than the system it replaced? Isn't Amazon's same-day delivery worth it? Which harms are real and which are hypothetical? Has the techlash gotten it right? And which of these companies is really the worst? Which ones might be, well, evil?
We don't mean evil in the mustache-twirling, burn-the-world-from-a-secret-lair sense -- well, we mostly don't mean that -- but rather in the way Googlers once swore to avoid mission drift, respect their users, and spurn short-term profiteering, even though the company now regularly faces scandals in which it has violated its users' or workers' trust. We mean ills that outweigh conveniences. We mean temptations and poison pills and unanticipated outcomes.
Slate sent ballots to "a wide range of journalists, scholars, advocates, and others who have been thinking critically about technology for years," and reported that while America's big tech companies topped the list, "our respondents are deeply concerned about foreign companies dabbling in surveillance and A.I., as well as the domestic gunners that power the data-broker business."
But while there were some disagreements, Palantir still rose to #4 on the list because "almost everyone distrusts Peter Thiel."
Interestingly, their list ranks SpaceX at #17 (for potentially disrupting astronomy by clogging the sky with satellites) and ranks Tesla at #14 for "its troubled record of worker safety and its dubious claims that it will soon offer 'full self-driving' to customers who have already paid $7,000 for the promised add-on... Our respondents say the very real social good that Tesla has done by creating safe, zero-emission vehicles does not justify misdeeds, like apparent 'stealth recalls' of defects that appear to violate safety laws or the 19 unresolved Clean Air Act violations at its paint shop."
Slate's article includes its comprehensive list of the 30 most dangerous tech companies. But here's the top 10:
- Amazon
- Alphabet
- Palantir Technologies
- Uber
- Apple
- Microsoft
- ByteDance
- Exxon Mobil
There's also lots of familiar names higher up on the list, including both 8chan (#20) and Cloudflare (#21). 23andMe came in at #18, while Huawei was #11. Netflix does not appear anywhere on the list, but Disney ranks #15.
And Oracle was #19. "It takes a lot to make me feel like Google is being victimized by a bully," wrote Cory Doctorow, "but Oracle managed it."
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Writing enemies lists: a clear sign of mental and spiritual health.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Especially when they are wrong. I love Amazon and think they are one of the best large companies out there.
Microsoft is by far the most evil by strong-arming and forcing people into using Windows 10, which has built-in malware in a crippled marketing platform pretending to be an operating system.
Google/Alphabet isn't nearly as evil as they try to make out. Yes, Google spies a lot but most of their software is totally open source, like Android and Chromium so it's completely accessible and easy to add, remov
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft is by far the most evil by strong-arming and forcing people into using Windows 10, which has built-in malware in a crippled marketing platform pretending to be an operating system.
Wait for the monthly subscription fees to start...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Which in turn collects all media houses into a collective evil thing.
And that explains why they think that 8chan itself is evil while it's just the users. It's like saying the internet is evil. To be evil there must be an agenda driven by the outfit.
4chan & the darker sibling 8chan are also a treasure trove of intelligence information among all that noise that exists there. Sometimes it's worth to collect info on crazies to see which ones that are bad crazy like running a shootout team and the ones just
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple? They are literally fighting with the government(s) to protect your privacy. Their technology has saved countless lives, and enabled disparate families to communicate like never before. Their accessibility features are the benchmark in the industry. Evil?
Tesla has statistically saved more lives than the idiots at slate for sure. Thats just maths (statistical average deaths per mile driven vs deaths per mile driven in a tesla), not to mention the tons of CO2 saved by their fleet.
It's articles like these that make me think the media is in bed with our politicians, who seem poised to legislate against big tech as their next trick, and need people to view the victims of said legislation as "evil". They aren't. No one forced you to use any products associated with big tech. The only people in the US with the power to coerce you are the people in government.
You know who are evil? Media companies conspiring with government, or worse, becoming its pawn to help reduce your rights and civil liberties through manipulation. Slate, your freedom to freely publish what you want is LITERALLY guaranteed in the constitution. The only profession so protected. Don't feel like you have to do their dirty bidding.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
SpaceX ...This isn’t exactly evil,`
`One evil thing:
Great job slate. You needed one evil thing.
Tesla
`One evil thing: Tesla has been criticized for using the term “autopilot” to describe its vehicles’ less-than-autonomous driver-assist feature`
The evil thing is that Tesla has been criticized for this?
Astounding journalism.
Re: Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
The investigation is about whether or not these unintended accelerations were due to a technical/software problem with the car, rather than simple pedal misapplication. You make it sound like they already determined the car was to blame and are just investigating how it happened.
The vast majority of "unintended accelerations" in any type of car (they do occur frequently) is caused by people pushing the wrong pedal. It's almost always while parking, even though the car doesn't know whether you're parking or just stopping for a red light. That kind of suggests a problem between the seat and the ceiling. There have been many, many cases across different types of cars where pedal misapplication was confirmed to be the cause.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple tries to do some good. But they also do some bad.
First off the top of my head is their fight against Right to Repair legislation. They're leading the charge against this.
Apple? They are literally fighting with the government(s) to protect your privacy. Their technology has saved countless lives
Apple Reverses Ban On App That Allowed Hong Kong Protestors to Track Police Movements [slashdot.org]
Evil, like being a troll, is multidimensional (Score:3)
I agree with your [saloomy's] initial premise, but you don't word it well enough to deserve an insightful mod. Also counts against you that you accepted the AC's meaningless Subject: line.
Yes, the list is flawed, but the underlying problem is "evil" is a complicated thing to measure. You [saloomy again] did look in the right direction by considering areas where the highly ranked as "evil" companies are also doing good things. I even agree with most of your counterexamples, but that isn't the heart of the is
Re: (Score:3)
Wait a minute... I think there are a couple of financial institutions that are basically tech companies and that are at least as evil as some of the top 10. (I checked the rest of the list, and they definitely are unfairly excluding Goldman Sachs and fiendish friends.)
I suppose the demands for purity always existed, as a part of humanity. But seeing the results here with Slashdotters ending up with something that looks like a statement that just about all companies are evil, at least to me is just an example of this.
I really prefer to separate actual malice like Enron and psychopathy like Theranos from companies that are legally looking out for their interests. After everything is counted and all of the castigators are finished - there isn't much left.
But you write
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple? They are literally fighting with the government(s) to protect your privacy.
That's mostly a marketing move.
What about all their spying and anti-repair bullshit?
Re: (Score:2)
What spying?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I meant "telemetry".
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I meant "telemetry".
Prove it.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, I meant "telemetry".
Prove it.
Unless Apple has somehow managed to send data that can't be detected by packet sniffers, there is precious little that you don't approve sending to Apple.
Windows on the other hand....
Re: (Score:3)
Either your packet sniffer is failing hardcore or your just a troll/shill......
if you actually read the news articles on this site you'd know about all the private information leaks that were happening when Apple made the false claim "what happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone", or how Apple was sending your information back to them while claiming they didn't. It was big news, how did you miss the multiple stories about these things that were here, not to mention over numerous other tech sites?
Y'all have been asked to prove it - What you just wrote isn't proof of any kind.
Re: Wow (Score:2)
Specifically on your take regarding Tesla, just a warning on not to take those average numbers on face value. Tesla was a niche automaker with a small range of recent models targeting specific customers - this leads to bias in terms of accident rates overall compared to the wider market with older cars and less experienced or able drivers.
Re: Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No one forced you to use any products associated with big tech
Really? how can one earn a living without using these products? Which were pushed everywhere via monopolistic practices precisely for this reason, to force a dependency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple are creating disposable non-repairable products that are awful for the environment. They're also creating computing devices that won't let you run your own code.
1. Every tech company is "guilty" of your first "claim".
2. You can use XCode to write/compile and run anything on an iOS/iPadOS Device (and there are several Open Source repositories of iOS Projects). As far as Macs go, same thing, but even more so. You can easily tell macOS to run anything you can Install from anywhere. It will warn you if it isn't signed by a Registered Developer (which is a good thing for 99.999% of the population); but you can always override that warning, and only have to do it once per "first run" of those "unregistered" Applications.
So what was your point, again?
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed on Apple. Why are they so high on the list?
What many called their 'walled garden' is Apple trying to keep their customers' devices secure, partially with on-device encryption, and part with refusals to unlock iPhones for the FBI (who can already unlock one for $1500).
There is the issue of, FTA:
Its critics say it ... pays too little in taxes to the U.S. government, ...
Not paying taxes? Amazon doesn't pay any taxes (that are not refunded). Facebook doesn't pay taxes. The list goes on. I think that Apple is one of the tech giants that does have a tax bill at the end of the yea
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
If you stabbed yourself in the face with a rust pitchfork, you would feel much better.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised they didn't go with the notoriously high turnover rate at SpaceX. It's a terrible place to work by all accounts.
Those who aren't good enough for SpaceX can always apply at Boeing, where life is easy and you can take all the time you want working on disposable rockets that cost a billion a pop. Give or take a billion.
And if you're not good enough for the Boeing space program, maybe they'll let you work on their aircraft flight control systems. No qualifications required.
Yes, SpaceX is tough. But somehow they are still one of the most popular employers for highly skilled job seekers, with talented people lining up for
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, SpaceX is tough. But somehow they are still one of the most popular employers for highly skilled job seekers, with talented people lining up for a chance to get in. And their results are truly spectacular. Looks like they're doing something right.
While I'm happy to work for places that are a challenge, and I think that Spacex is doing cool stuff, they really aren't doing anything all that new. They are standing on the shoulders of giants that have gone before.
If they were a part of the businesses that produced for Apollo, they would have been in the same place - at the beginning.
I don't know whether this is all Ford Versus Chevy arguing, but to me, it is just a natural progression - from the huge investments in making say, the F-1 engine, that
ExxonMobil (Score:5, Interesting)
Exxon Mobil should either not be considered a "tech company', or be in the top 5 most evil/dangerous ones.
They are the the single largest (wealthiest) company in the world and has been actively denying global warming, despite their own scientists warning them about it since the 1970s.
They are also a direct descended of Standard Oil, the largest monoply ever made, whose owner, J.D. Rockefeller literally ran away and hid from U.S. Congressional hearings that eventually let to it being split up (creating Exxon).
They are the closest thing to a James Bond type supervillain organization that has ever existed without being outlawed by governments.
But, to quote Seinfeld "Not that there's anything wrong with that."
Re:ExxonMobil (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like based on their methodology that they really got the "companies most people have heard of, who they have a negative feeling about". Guarantee there are more evil companies that most journalists just don't know the name of.
Of course, the "thirty most evil countries" list would also be interesting, although it'd be subject to even worse availability bias from polling journalists.
Re:ExxonMobil (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, these tech journalists don't seem to be the best gauge of a company's "evilness." It's not like these guys do much investigative journalism. Most of them just receive product from tech companies and write reviews. Even when they're publishing actual news it's not like it's more than surface level stuff and most of it is just regurgitating press releases from tech companies.
It seems curious that Amazon is #1 while Facebook has been used as a tool to undermine democracy and organize genocide. Uber is also an interesting one. While their corporate culture disfunction is well known, I don't understand how that makes them more evil than, as the OP points out ExxonMobile.
In the end, all they seemed to produce was a list of the biggest tech companies in a somewhat random order.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber is also an interesting one. While their corporate culture disfunction is well known, I don't understand how that makes them more evil than, as the OP points out ExxonMobile.
Uber makes self driving cars that already has a history of killing people.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems curious that Amazon is #1 while Facebook has been used as a tool to undermine democracy and organize genocide.
Facebook sucks, but blaming them for "having been used" is like blaming BiC for making lighters that start fires or pens that people use to write screeds that incite violence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I noticed that a great many of those companies seem to be USA companies.
Is there an issue here with the USA producing so many evil tech companies?
Because it's a bit of a concern to the other 7+ billion inhabitants of the planet...
Re: ExxonMobil (Score:2)
It's more of an issue with the journalists surveyed knowing more about these US companies. It's like surveying Brits about the "best football players" and then thinking it's significant they didn't name anyone in the NFL.
Re:ExxonMobil (Score:4, Insightful)
Exxon Mobil should either not be considered a "tech company', or be in the top 5 most evil/dangerous ones.
Of course. Exxon Mobil's position on the list is an artifact of the ranking methodology.
Some people left EM off the list entirely because EM is not a "tech company" in their opinion. Others put EM at #1. Average those responses out, and you get #10.
Same with Palantir. It is certainly more evil than any of the companies listed above it. But since so many people have never heard of Palantir, it wasn't included on their list at all.
The ranking is a mix of evilness and prominence.
Re: (Score:2)
The ranking is a mix of evilness and prominence.
I think that's fine.
Imagine you set up "Shanghai Bill's EvilCorp". You put evil at front and centre of your charter ahead even of shareholder profits. And you write a mission statement listing the evils you wish to perpetrate.
How evil is your company? Chances are you couldn't do anything like as much as harm as Google, Amazon or Facebook when they're not even trying to be evil. Their sheer size means even reasnable sounding things can do great harm. And then w
Re:ExxonMobil (Score:4, Informative)
If your definition of "evil" is "selling a product most people want at a price they're OK with", then sure. That definition gets Amazon too, just so evil for selling things conveniently.
Re: (Score:3)
it is the way they treat their workers, the way they move around local tax laws so they can undercut local competition
Better than Walmart on both accounts. It's never a bad thing to lower costs so you can sell a product cheaply. They do treat their employees like shit (developers included), but they pay well so it's up to you whether it's worth it. Their combination of reasonably low prices (you can find better prices for most things on Amazon, if you don't care about convenience) and paying their employees reasonably well is pretty good IMO. Plenty to criticize too, but as giant corporations go, at least they have an
Re: (Score:3)
Surely it'd make better sense from a financial and productivity perspective to treat their staff well and pay them normally. Amazon also play nasty with suppliers, ignoring contracts, selling grey market etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Surely it'd make better sense from a financial and productivity perspective to treat their staff well and pay them normally.
I agree. My best theory is senior management taking joy in treating staff poorly, given it costs them a lot, and they've been struggling for years to hire enough people. I sort of get it for tech, because many kids fresh out of college will look only at pay, and not realize things are better elsewhere. But the days when the median age of developers was in the 20s are past now, and never coming back, so it's increasingly stupid. And for warehouse workers, where labor costs really matter, they have massiv
Re: (Score:2)
And yet I guarantee you have bought one of their products at one point in your life.
Re: (Score:2)
Standard Oil (Score:2)
desendent of Standard Oil
The Standard Oil brand took hold because the product was safe and reliable and sold in honest weights and measures. Lamp oil explosions wcre common before Rockefeller. You might not like the man, but maturity and technical competence matter.
Re: (Score:2)
And before Standard Oil came along, lamps burned WHALE OIL.
Re: (Score:2)
Exxon Mobil should either not be considered a "tech company'
In the same vein, technically SpaceX is an aerospace company (a category not normally lumped in with "tech companies").
Re:ExxonMobil (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, so what am I missing? "single largest (wealthiest) company in the world" ...
Their market cap is 1/3 of Apple, they have 5.35B in cash (Apple has 48.84B, hell Shell has 15.42B...), they have 71,000 employees to Apple's 132,000 or Walmart's 2.2 million ... they're #12 in the S&P 500 ... what's your metric?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"They are the closest thing to a James Bond type supervillain organization that has ever existed without being outlawed by governments."
I'd suggest the East India Company was MUCH worse than Standard Oil (aka S.O./Esso/Exxon Mobil).
And it lasted for centuries.
And was, literally, a government for many nations, in my understanding.
But Exxon Mobil is certainly up there with them, no doubt about that.
Seems like we should get a critique from... (Score:2)
And Gandalf knew it was urgent to block the palantir's visibility immediately.
Sage (and mage) advice!
The disadvantage of renaming yourself Alphabet (Score:2)
In every alphabetically sorted list of evil companies, you appear at the very top.
Re: (Score:3)
In every alphabetically sorted list of evil companies, you appear at the very top.
Only because AAA Meat Packers finally cleaned up their act...
Google needs #1 (Score:2, Informative)
Any list without google at the top is clueless or highly biased. All of Alphabet wields immense power, and poorly understood.
In general, Slate probably feels Google is a âoetheir guyâ because of similar political leanings. This blinds them; power like theirs is used in subtle and destructive ways.
Google could end the world in about two years if that was their goal. It isnâ(TM)t, but what their goal actually is, is by no means plain. That all by itself should push them on the list, and wit
Re: (Score:2)
No, facebook deserves #1.
While the two have large commonalities by various measures, since its dark inception facebook has demonstrated a consistent and flagrant disregard for anything resembling morals or ethics. The company isn't just rotten to the core, it is rot. Their corporate culture is dictated from the top.
Re: (Score:2)
âoeGoogleâ
Don't blame yourself, it is just the distortion field that makes those words harder to see.
Re: Google needs #1 (Score:2)
Then you have also a huge pile of tracking pixel services that are worse than google because they don't offer anything in return at all, just track you. They are really scary. Google/Alphabet are at least known and gives something in return, even if it's mostly irrelevant ads that they serve that's giving them income.
Nearly all of the S&P 500's (Score:2)
biggest earners are represented. I'm guessing as long as they make money, no one gives a fuck.
Are they really evil? (Score:2)
Tesla (Score:5, Informative)
Nice clickbait, EditorDavid. You got me ;)
troubled record of worker safety
What, by 2/3rds the rate of reportable incidents as the factory had when it was NUMMI [ca.gov], and a small fraction as many as when it was a GM-only shop? And yes, Cal-OSHA has inspected based on the "Reveal" claims that they were hiding reportable incidents - and found none. The only thing they were cited for was a cord that was a trip hazard [insideevs.com], which was moved while the inspectors were still there.
Cal-OSHA is the most stringent OSHA agency in the US, and factories that are rapidly scaling are more dangerous than those operating at steady-state. Tesla has regardless been at or around the US industry average since 2017.
that it will soon offer 'full self-driving' to customers who have already paid $7,000 for the promised add-on
The FSD package contains both current (autopark, summon, smart summon, etc) and upcoming features (city driving). They released a feature-complete FSD preview in late December, which shows the full detection suite for city driving (the one thing that AP doesn't handle yet), showing how it would react, but doesn't yet steer based on it. The latter is expected to roll out "soon".
Note that there's a big difference between feature completeness and "the driver can fall asleep while the car operates". I personally am a pessimist in regards to timelines on that front, and don't expect to see it for years. But allowing point-to-point driving, they've made tremendous progress on that of late.
Regardless, everyone decides on their own how much current features are worth to them and how optimistic they are about future features.
Also note that Tesla is one of the few companies who hasn't advertised their current systems as being a "self-driving car". Here, for example, is a Mercedes ad [imgix.net] doing exactly that.
Huh? Exactly what is bad about fixing things without waiting to be forced to by a government agency and even when they're not bothering customers? Why be like GM which hid the ignition problem that they knew about for over a decade while it killed people, until they were finally forced to fix it? Why be like Ford which knowingly put faulty "dry transmissions" in vehicles, knowing that they were going to break? Why shouldn't manufacturers immediately fix any flaws they discover, without having to wait for a customer or government agency to complain? This is such a bizarre criticism to me.
Every single automaker on earth has citations against it. Including the exact same type re: Tesla. For example, here's Ford [mlive.com]. The way they get the "19" number, widely claimed by Tesla foes, are what are known as "deviations", which are incidents in which one or more measurements goes outside of a specified bound. They're not "19 separate issues". The deviations were self-reported by Tesla to BAAQMD, the same way NUMMI did with their deviations [baaqmd.gov]. The factory remains well below its total allowable emissions [baaqmd.gov].
Re:Tesla (Score:5, Informative)
Just as an elaboration on the "stealth recall" thing, I just saw this on TMC which reminded me of it:
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tm... [teslamotorsclub.com]
How can anyone find this sort of policy to be a bad thing?
Re: Tesla (Score:4, Insightful)
Why, hello TSLAQ!
For those just joining us, TSLAQ invented a "sudden unintended acceleration" conspiracy theory (although they generally don't tie it to an "update" - they apply it to all Teslas ever, even original Roadsters) by googling anyone who ever reported "unintended acceleration" in any Tesla ever. A short seller then filed a petition to the NHTSA based on their google results. The problem is that you can do this for literally any car. Seriously, right now, go to Google and search for "unintended accleration (brand-name-here)" for any popular brand.
It's a nonsense conspiracy theory. And is literally impossible. The accelerator has two potentiometers, wired opposite from each other, on opposite parts of the pedal, feeding two separate lines. The signal changes from the potentiometers have to be precisely opposite from each other, or the acceleration request is nulled out.
Not according to Glassdoor, Indeed, and every single Tesla employee that I know.
Bzzt, wrong. The SolarCity buyout was sold to investors as getting a distressed asset at a bargain. That's why it was so bloody cheap, and why shareholders voted for it. The buyout price was determined by an external auditor, and was lower than the price Elon wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tm... [teslamotorsclub.com]
Boil it down... (Score:2)
Most people have heard of them? yes. Publicly traded? yes.
They're on the list.
My list is better (Score:2)
30 Most Evil Propagandists Masquerading As Journalists
6. Slate - they're trying hard, but still nowhere near far-reaching as the MSM
Alphabet? (Score:2)
Comcast? (Score:3)
Where is Comcast? It's one of the most evil with respect to customers. Verizon's in the top 30.
Re:Comcast? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is only a list of popular companies, Comcast isn't qualified.
No outrage is generated by including them.
Not viable bait.
Re: (Score:2)
'editorial oversight'
So ... God Hath Spoken, 'eh? (Score:2)
I can't WAIT to see who's starring as #1 on the good list. If i can make a guess: them?
My employer didn't make it! Should I be worried? (Score:2)
Four companies I use the most are in the Top 10 (Score:2)
Furthermore, my favorite of all is Number 1. I always check my local brick-and-mortar stores before resorting to Amazon, but lately they seem to be not even trying. For the last week I've been looking for ear cushions for a relative who is on oxygen: little pads that go behind your ears to prevent chafing from a nose cannula. This is exactly the kind of tiny, cheap item that the big chain pharmacies should carry, especially in a retiree-heavy area.
But I came up blank at every store. It was hard to find an e
This list is wrong (Score:2)
The Grid is not a company and shouldn't be on the list (and even if you wanted to single out an individual company like PG&E or whoever, they aren't a tech company at all and shouldn't be on the list)
I dont see what makes AirBnB evil, the evil comes from landlords who choose to list their properties on AirBnB and push up rents for long renters
IBM isn't evil either anymore (certainly not as evil as they used to be anyway)
I dont think 8kun counts as a company.
SoaceX isn't a tech company. They are an aeros
Amazon? (Score:2)
Amazon maybe working their people to death, but they are filling the demands of their customers who: 1, want it cheap; 2, want it now. Thus, their customers, people, are evil.
Google is not on the list? (Score:2)
That basically means you could buy your way off it. Google doubtlessly belongs among the top-10 for their relentless fight against privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see they made it "Alphabet".
Not the list, what drives list maneuvers? (Score:2)
What are the processes by which some of the companies on this list earned their place on the list?
In the case of Alphabet (Google), from the outside it seems like something happened that changed the way Sergey Brin and Larry Page felt about their very successful corporation. Perhaps they don't like watching financial analysts extinguishing interesting projects. At one time Google was just another interesting project.
I would say the situation is that corporate boardrooms is the site where the ugly decisions
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid list (Score:2)
Number one brings me beer and booze home, the rest of the list just try to show me ads that I don't see.
while the list is somewhat accurate (Score:2)
random list of companies (Score:3)
That's all it is.
Do not feed trolls (Score:2)
Don't look now (Score:2)
They're evil because they are successful but slow to learn to play the game of kickbacks to those in power. Some of these disrupted industries are in bed with the politicians, it all being a little too close to protection rackets.
This is just a list of attack memes. Don't look behind the curtain.
Oracle First (Score:2)
"""""Alphabet""""" (Score:3)
Whenever something with a bad rep changes its name, do not speak their "new" name.
Re: (Score:3)
Alphabet before M$ and Apple?! Where's ORACLE and IBM?!
Oracle and IBM only hurt customers, sue competitors and buy companies to milk them dry. Why would this bother journalists and scholars?
Re: (Score:2)
Where's ORACLE and IBM?!
They are both on the list.
Re:Tesla/SpaceX (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tesla/SpaceX (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what I find odd about the list. What's the difference between SpaceX and the other aerospace companies NOT on the list that manufacture things that kill people in ways that make mass shootings pale in comparison, such as bombers, cruise missiles and, yes, those lately in the news, Predator drones? The only military contracts that SpaceX has that I'm aware of is for military transport, sending perhaps some spy satellites into orbit.
The same thing for Tesla. What's the difference between Tesla and the other automotive companies that are still giants when compared to Tesla and, by default, have a bigger ecological footprint? What about that European company that fudged its emissions stats?
With some notable exceptions like Thiel's Palantir, this seems like a list of the sexiest evil companies to make the front or home pages of your favorite news media conglomerate.
Re: (Score:2)
"What about that European company that fudged its emissions stats?"
I'll assume you mean VW (and some others...) who accurately quoted their diesel engined cars emissions as emitted under the prescribed test.
I don't see any fudging there. There was a test done on their cars. Their cars passed the test - because they detected it was a test and adjusted their ECU to ensure that they would pass. That's not a fudge, that's a predictable response to an event that is mandated.
The test is nothing like driving in th
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a top-30 list of the most ad-click-whoring websites available?
From Wikipedia: "In 2014, Slate's then editor-in-chief Julia Turner acknowledged a reputation for counterintuitive arguments forms part of Slate's "distinctive" brand, ... But journalism is more interesting when it surprises you either with the conclusions that it reaches..."
I like my journalism to surprise me when the actual facts are surprising, not as a marketing gimmick.
Re: (Score:2)
"Save the planet today" ??? Is that supposed to be some sort of joke? The planet doesn't need saving, and won't until it's engulfed by the sun in 7 or 8 billion years.
The net effect of Tesla's technology on the climate is minimal at best, and not necessarily a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA scientists say that there is a 1% chance that Mercury's orbit will become unstable before then, because Jupiter, and if it does it will completely trash the current conditions on the other inner planets. Even if it doesn't hit anything, Earth would end up like Venus or Mars.
Not that was could save it from that, but it would screw up your timeline.
Re: Tesla/SpaceX (Score:2)
What on earth is the value you find in defeating a ridiculous straw man of your own invention? It reminds me of the chemistry professor I used to have, who got outraged by the use of the term âoeorganicâ in relation to food, oblivious to the fact that English words routinely have more than one meaning, and that chemistry doesnâ(TM)t get to call dibs on a wordâ(TM)s meaning.
How about a meaningful rebuttal based on engaging with what the OP actually meant by âoesave the planetâ,
Re: (Score:2)
And SpaceX... first manned missions to Mars in 2024
No. There is not going to be a manned mission to Mars in 2024. That is silly as fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
To save humanity in the event of an planet Earth extinction event, you'd need a complete ecosystem on Mars, that requires NO input from Earth, so... doing that is a BIG ask in a few decades, if it's at all possible.
Personally I'd rather Earth remain habitable for ALL species that evolved on it, far into the future.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying you don't make backups, because you'd rather have your main drive remain intact for all the data saved on it.