Interesting idea.

The apologies for things someone wasn't involved in seem both pointless and self-aggrandizing.

I might as well apologize for railway maintenance in the DRC because I have a character named after its capital.

Also how exactly are we supposed to boycott oil companies in regions where anti-oil activists are murdered, or chocolate companies in countries where a reporter kept digging up corruption and child labor and later was killed? It'd be easier if we could target the people most likely to be responsible who also make enough money to worry about these peoples influence on their income, and at the same time are the people who earn enough to have someone assassinated.

Shinigami Eyes, a browser plugin that crowdsources reports of transphobia and flags people with enough reports, got struck down in Norway because people who got flagged considered it a threat to free speech.

I think any community sourced blacklist tool big enough to have influence would meet severe pushback from anyone who felt targeted, using any tactic possible. Even something seemingly non-partisan would face accusations that it hurts their freedom of speech or has some sort of bias.

Free speech is more about the government putting you in prison for talking negatively of the country or politicians. On what grounds was it struck down?

Norway has laws about permitting direct responding to public accusations, the application does not provide sufficient or compliant policy on the data it crowdsources, nor provides a mechanism for the tagged individuals to respond/object. Norway says this fails their laws, specifically lawfulness of processing (Art 6), transparency (Art. 12), information (Art 14), and the GDPR. Shinigami Eyes failed to respond to requests from the norway GDPR Supervisor. Pretty typical stuff for small devs to have problems with, complying with all international laws is basically impossible for an individual or team without large legal backing.

Yep, I agree there, would be better if law enforcement didn't require payment by citizens because now the law is only enforced with the people who can afford it, so long as the criminal isn't so rich that they aren't punishable for their crimes.

Looking at it, seems like the Norway thing was due to data protection laws, GDPR, and article 9 of the GDPR which prevents companies storing certain kinds of data, like "Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited."

While it's good for stopping companies from gathering this kind of data and labeling a person with it... they can still gather the data, they just can't use a label. AI bias doesn't come from labels, it just gets the data and does what people do on average with it. I think in trying to nip the problem in the bud, GDPR hasn't fixed the real problem, which is acting on its labels, not the labels themselves. Labels can be used for good, forbidding labels just makes it harder to separate the good from the bad.

It is quite bothersome how difficult it can be to blame the correct people. Who was the one who decided to change the garbage pickup schedule, or who moved the bread section to the other side of the store when it was so convenient previously? It leads to people either leveraging blame at the organization as a whole, or worse the people they can talk to, namely the gargbageman or cashier that works the place, as if they had any vote on the reorganization of their workplace or have a direct line to the folks in charge to pass the complaint on. Neither is very fruitful.

Stuff like ESG score and the requirements for a movie to get accepted to next year's oscars are kinda playging current media and the reason behind a lot of people calling for boycotts.

To understand why people say "get woke go broke" , we need to understand what people means with the word "woke": it's not just the inclusion of positive message but it's also done in a obnoxious manner and at the detriment of everything else, which results in people either losing interest or n extreme cases calling for a boycott and the people behind said woke product usually doubling it down by accusing the public at large of being hateful, thus worsening the situation awhole.

It's not even a positive message. Most of the time it's the kind of ivory tower nonsense that is superficially nice but deeply flawed because the people pushing the message don't have any real world experience and are so far disconnected from their audience that the message is grating. In many cases the "positivity" is purely performative, aka virtue signaling. It's deeper than just people opposing positive messages. Calling it hate reinforces everything about why people dislike everything woke. Calling it hate fails to address valid concerns, further demonstrates the disconnect, and it is an emotional (aka virtue signaling) appeal.

true, i think the best example would be to take a look at disney' remale of mulan, while the original didn't followed 100% the original ballade, it still maintained its message intact while also showing mulan's growth and struggle.
the remake just turned her into a clone of rey palpatine that defends the traditional values the ballade shunned, and the less we speak about her sister or the special thanks in the credit, the better it is.
tl;dr- we went from "it doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman, all that matter is tjat you put effort in what you do" to "you are amazing the way you are necause you are a woman (as long as you are born with superpowers, or else eat docks lmao)".

I do like the concept of this thing. It would be nice to sort know who the black sheeps are, in case you like to try avoid them so you can.

And what you say is so true. It takes long to build up a good relationship with something or someone. And it only takes mere momments of missbehave to ruin it all.
And in contra it takes even longer to rebirth from the ashes. Aka get a good relationship again.

It's just weird to me that we live in a data-centric time where people are pushing back against corporations, and nobody's thought to use this to automatically target the people making the worst decisions that affect the most people.

Maybe the system is so corrupted already that the topdogs actually dont want an automatic wiggling into their shaddy bussineses ? I wont know.

It wouldn't be shady, since it's already public knowledge that CEOs control the company, executives also control the company to a lesser degree, and policy changes would be pointless if users and consumers weren't informed of them. This would just be an app that takes all of that information, and lets you know who was in charge when specific decisions were made. You could gather all that information right now, the difference is that this would be automatic, and keep a record of all their past decisions.

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. It's functionally impossible to track and only consume products from ethical companies.

* The "ethical" megacorps just haven't had their crimes discovered yet.
* The "ethical" megacorps use products and services from unethical ones. Greenwashing is an example of this.
* If you don't use the cheaper unethical services, you will be at a competitive disadvantage to people that do and go out of business.

I like to believe that there are good people, that corporations can be started by good people, and that people retire or change jobs and are replaced by other people who may not be as good. I also believe that people currently rise to the top of their fields by being more cutthroat than their equals. I also believe that the kind of person it takes to create a globally beneficial business model isn't the same as the kind of person who leapfrogs from one existing business to another. Inherently, one tried to solve a problem, the other finds ways to make people pay more for the solution while reducing how much the solution costs to create.

My solution here would be to boycott the one who works against the consumer for their own benefit, and make it so that hiring them comes with enough costs that they aren't equivalent to their competitors. If a company knows they will lose money by hiring a scoundrel, they might be more inclined to hire someone that puts the world before their bank account.

Your solution is idealistic. There is very little choice in consumer products. Nestle for example has a track record of awful behavior like giving mothers free formula just long enough for their lactation to end. Now look at how many products are made by Nestle. Good luck boycotting them. Now do that for the other 5 megacorps that take up most of the shelf space of a grocery store. Oops, can't go shopping anymore.

A strong state that takes no shit from corporations is what is required. China is no paragon of virtue, but when one of their companies was cutting infant formula with filler to increase profits and cut costs, the CCP EXECUTED people.

So recently the CEO and executives of Unity decided to implement a policy change for Unity, the game engine, where at a certain point they are paid $0.20 per installation, not per purchase. Seems weird, until we recall that their CEO John Riccitiello used to work for Electronic Arts as their CEO, and in 2011 he spoke in a stockholder meeting he was quoted as saying:

"When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you’re really not that price sensitive at that point in time.

So essentially what ends up happening, and the reason the play-first, pay-later model works nicely, is a consumer gets engaged in a property. They may spend ten, twenty, thirty, fifty hours in a game. And then, when they’re deep into a game, they’re well invested in it.

At that point in time the commitment can be pretty high. It’s a great model and it represents a substantially better future for the industry."

You say my solution is idealistic. I feel like in this instance there was 12 years of warning and nobody acted on it because nothing bad had happened yet. I feel like it was inevitable, and anyone following that guys trajectory probably feels that everyone else is stupid if they thought things would turn out differently. It takes years to switch between game engines, you need to re-learn things between them, re-starting a 3-year long game project costs a fortune. There's other options out there at least, Unity isn't a monopoly, but how many Unity workers have quit as a final act of pushing back? And the workers did push back, everything the internet's talking about has already been talked about by Unity's employees. Anything that happens is the sole responsibility of the executives and the CEO, and what's gonna happen? Unity could sink, the rats abandon ship, and then they go to work at Naughty Dog or something and a few years later the game industry has this revelation as the game company starts to pull the same bullshit. Who knows why, it'll be a mystery.

As for China, it's a economy the government controls fully. Makes it easy for them to react and deal with disasters, and it makes them awful at listening to experts. Everything can be political, and so they must manage everything to ensure the right political message is conveyed. Think of it like a theme park. If there's a flood, expect it to be because a reservoir was filled and they needed to empty it a little. Do they warn the citizens? No, because then they're responsible for the damage. Any decision based on the longevity of the people is secondary to the goals of the nation. Want more food? Tell the farmers to stop growing cash crops and only grow food crops but don't pay them more to cover the lost income they relied on. Too many landslides? Stop clearcutting forests and plant new ones quickly. Not enough food again? Clearcut the forests that haven't finished growing. Another landslide? Who'da thunk.

When Japan started emptying the treated Fukushima power-plant waste water (takes ten years to treat this stuff, same regulations France has for their treated waste water) China made a big deal of it, wrecked their fishing industry, etc. They forget that their coastal waters are contaminated by local industries in China and have been for decades. But the reason for all this isn't the waste water, it's purely political. As for the baby formula, that was in 2009, Xi has been in charge since 2012. On top of that, two men were executed but 22 companies were involved, and this wasn't just formula, it was milk products in general sold globally from China, and world governments asked why Beijing took so long for the scandal to go public, having been discovered in... 2008 it seems. There's too much to read, but it reads a lot like anything, quick to cover it up but slow to stop it.