[enkid]

The Friedman Doctrine ( what you are espousing, that business are only set up to make money) is a relatively recent social construct, having been first articulated in 1970. Questioning whether or not it should be the basis of how we organize an economy is perfectly valid. Simply saying "this is the responsibility of Google" is missing the point. Cases like this should make us ask if this should be the way we assign responsibility to businesses or if we should assign them different responsibilities.

[X6S1x6Okd1st]

To anyone curious I'd also really recommend reading the original piece

https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctr...

The argument made here includes not just that the company should not spend it's resources on things other than profit for the sake of shareholders, but also worries about employees and customers. At least in this article Friedman was advocating for something much more positive than the situation we found ourselves in today

[gruez]

>The Friedman Doctrine ( what you are espousing, that business are only set up to make money) is a relatively recent social construct, having been first articulated in 1970.

What were the robber barons of the 19th century doing then? Or do you think that companies like standard oil were not "only set up to make money"?

[enkid]

The robber barons are specifically examples of people considered not to be fulfilling their social responsibilities. The idea that business are only responsible to make money is the new concept, not that people were acting only to make money previously. It was seen as a bad thing, now its a deflection for bad behavior.