Accountability for the Rich and Famous: A Soft Landing for an Ex-Prince

In ancient Greek tragedy, it was not uncommon for a god or goddess to perform the function of a Greek (i.e., conscience) chorus at the end of a play while being pulled by pullies high above the stage. Deus ex machina is the Latin phrase, which meant, a deity out from pullies. We get machine, mechanism, and even engine from the Latin word, machina. A movie entitled Ex Machina is on an AI android that seems full of life, even miraculous, from “pullies” inside it’s “body.” Ex-Prince Andrew of the (seceded) sovereign state of UK, or “Britain” informally, seemed to fly about the other actors in being able to land, rent-free, fittingly around Christmas, 2025, at the monarch’s Sandringham estate in eastern Britain, still rent-free, and with King Charles funding his brother. Considering that Andrew Windsor should arguably been sent to prison for having sex with a 17 year-old prostitute in the employ of the infamous Epstein, and that a large settlement paid by Queen Elizabeth II made Giuffre’s charges go away, as if magically, Andrew not only landed on his feet, but without touching the ground where us mere mortals make our way through life to survive and perhaps prosper.

The state’s palace-office put out a statement claiming that “royal sympathies are with the victims of abuse, but if that were the case, the royal family could have acted more firmly . . . Distancing themselves from Andrew is not the same as calling for accountability.”[1] This is not to imply that the royal family approved of Andrew’s behavior, not only in allegedly illegally raping Giuffre or in allegedly having his police-guards dig up dirt on her, but make no mistake, his soft landing wherein he actually is allowed to remain comfortably in the air above us mere mortals does not divorce him from the luxurious life of royalty. Even though Andrew has been accused of using his public duties to enrich himself through his businesses, the King announced that he would be funding his brother going forward even though questions about “how, exactly, Andrew affords his lavish lifestyle” could continue to be raised.[2]

When a prince himself, Charles could be said to have abused Diana emotionally by serially subjecting her to his rather blatant infidelity with Camilla. Additionally, the royal family refused to get Diana help for her mental illness. So, it would not be surprising were the King to actually have sympathy for his brother plagued by misdeeds of his own. Birds of a feather fly together, even when they appear to diverge publicly.

The Palace, I suspect, has become very savvy in how to use brand management to shore up the reputation of the royal family as well as the various actors therein. As one commentator wrote, “Distinguishing Andrew from the rest of the royal family is Windsor brand management after years of taint by association.”[3] Such taint includes Prince Harry’s revelation that Prince William became violent in attacking the younger brother because William was angry and disliked Harry’s wife, a Californian and a former actress! So the Palace put out video of William seemingly crying when listening to a subject’s sad story. The sudden show of emotion from a guy who had otherwise looked staid and placid should have raised questions of manipulation of the public. That William could become king sooner rather than later due to his father’s ongoing treatment of cancer (shown publicly in bloated, ruddy hands in photos) may have motivated the PR offensive. Such actually-offensive manipulation is sadly typically missed on the public anywhere. Dazzled perhaps by the rich and famous soaring above us, we look up but strangely miss the sordid underbellies. Deus ex machina really does seem to apply to royalty especially, even when accusations of squalid, even illegal conduct are too strong to ignore. It seems that the human mind, which is actually the brain, is too susceptible—too vulnerable—to being manipulated by forces whose power reigns on the public airwaves. If only you and I were as savvy as the rich and famous, accountability could be on the horizon. Surgite et  adsequimini superis!

---

1. Autumn Brewington, “UK’s Andrew Losing His ‘Prince” Title Isn’t the End of the Story,” MSNBC.com, October 31, 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

On the Ethics of Marketing AI

The documentary, Eternal You (2024), is one film that zeros in on the use of AI to contact loved ones who have died. As the marketing departments of the tech companies providing these products say, AI can deliver on what religion has only promised: to talk with people beyond the grave. Lest secular potential buyers be left out, AI can provide us with “a new form of transcendence.” Nevermind that the word, transcendence, like divinity and evil, is an inherently religious word. Nevermind, moreover, that the product is actually only a computer simulation of a person, rather than the actual person direct from heaven or hell. The marketing is thus misleading. In the film, a woman asks her dead husband if he is in heaven. “I’m in hell with the other addicts,” he answers. She is hysterical. Even though people who write computer algorithms cannot be expected to anticipate every possible question that AI could be asked and every response that it could give, government regulation keeping the marketing honest and accurate can significantly reduce the risk that is from AI’s use of inference (inductive) and probability that are beyond our control to predict and even understand.

The full essay is at "Eternal You."

American Airlines: Caring for People

What is the purpose of a business? According to Aristotle, there are different kinds of purposes. The final cause of a tree seed, for example, is a tree; the material cause is whatever biochemistry went into the seed. The final cause of a human sperm entering a human egg is an adult human being—hence the question of the ethics of abortion. A human embryo is potentially an adult human being. The material cause of an embryo lies in the biochemistry of the seed and the egg. But I digress. As regards a company, we can distinguish different kinds of purposes. Somewhat crudely, the real purpose can be distinguished from the ostensible purpose. The former has to do with what can be thought of as the bottom-line purpose: maximizing revenue or profit. Any ostensible purpose, such as feeding people or transporting them, is functional in nature, and can be viewed as a means of achieving the real purpose. A third kind of purpose can be labeled as a marketing purpose, the promotion of which is merely to serve the real purpose. In terms of Shankara’s Hindu metaphysical framework, the real purpose is in the real, the ostensible purpose is in the realm of appearance, and a marketing purpose is in that of illusion. I contend that business managers, especially in marketing, are accustomed to conflating these three types of purposes in being oriented to the real purpose. Not being transparent about the differences between these three purposes is, I submit, unethical in nature. I have an incident involving American Airlines in mind.

Eight Black men were ordered to leave a flight in early 2024 because a flight attendant complained about the men’s body odor. They were not seated together, and did not know each other, at least altogether, and yet presumably they all smelled the same. As far as business ethics cases go, this one is a whopper. When one of the men exclaimed, “So this is discrimination,” a woman wearing a badge (and thus was presumably an airline employee) replied, “I agree, I agree.”[1] With no other flights to the destination that day, the company reboarded the eight passengers on the same plane. To be sure, I don’t know whether any other reasons for the airline’s action in deplaning the eight men existed and, if so, whether any of them were valid but were not known to the press. Were all of the men covering their faces with masks or talking loudly or using fowl language, for instance, the airline may have had sufficient cause to remove the men. It seems odd that a company manager would take the decision to remove the men based only on an employee’s claim of a bad odor, especially given that none of the men reported having been told of the odor before being asked to leave the plane. In other words, I suspect that there is more to this story.

In any case, the airline’s statements can themselves be analyzed in terms of the real, ostensible, and marketing purposes of the company. One such statement is the following: “We take all claims of discrimination very seriously and want our customers to have a positive experience when they choose to fly with us.”[2] This is a very good statement, as it disavows the legitimacy of racial discrimination and is straight forward in situating a positive experience as something that, while relevant to the company in terms of providing a product/service, is not the company’s purpose.

I contend that the real purpose of American Airlines, and virtually any private company, is to make money. The company’s ostensible purpose is to transport people (and cargo). Next to these two purposes, it can be readily seen that providing a positive experience to customers does not in itself rise to the stature of being a purpose. Rather, providing a positive experience is a means. So far, the response of the company is fine.

The problem lies in the further statement, “Our teams are currently investigating the matter, as the claims do not reflect our core values or our purpose of caring for people.”[3] The choice of the word, “teams,” is immediately suspect, as companies have employees rather than bad sport analogies. The whiff of a marketer can thus be detected. Although the lack of honesty on this point is tedious, it points to a mindset that plays with words for effect. Gilding the lily is one way of expressing the mentality. The real problem lies in the second part of the statement, wherein caring for people is said to be the company’s purpose. Upon reading this part of the statement, my initial reflex was to think, an airline is not a nursing home. The latter does have as its main purpose the caring of people. The function of an airline is otherwise, being in transporting people from one place to another. So we don’t even have to go to the real purpose—that of maximizing profit—to catch a lower good being portrayed as a higher one. Aristotle refers to this as misordered concupiscence, and it is not ethical in nature. Placing the good of one’s car above the good that is in God is an example of placing a lower good above a higher one.

In actuality, stating “caring for people” as the airline’s purpose serves marketing. As if trying to turn lemons into lemonade, the manager who came up with that statement was using the incident to promote the airline, which in turn is in line with revenue and profits. I contend that using an error for self-promotion is morally squalid in nature, for the self-aggrandizement does not take seriously enough the need to accept the error publicly. Especially if no other reasons exist for having ordered the men off the plane, the seriousness of the harm to the Black men warrants significant attention be taken publicly by the airline. Beyond an easy apology that wouldn’t cost the company anything, an explanation was called for, and thus due publicly to the men at the very least. The airline was on much firmer ground in affirming that the company’s employees do try to give customers a positive experience. That employees are only human, and thus can make even bad mistakes, is more easily digested if a company does not invent feel-good purposes that are actually embellishments or even outright lies. Ecclesiastes has it that for everything there is a season. The season for atonement does not include self-aggrandizement.

---

1. Marnie Hunter, “Black Passengers Sue American Airlines . . .,” CNN.com, May 29, 2024 (accessed June 2, 2024).
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid, italics added for emphasis.

Time Magazine’s Person of the Year: Taylor Swift

Time magazine named the singer Taylor Swift as its person of the year for 2023. Such a force of nature were her stadium-filled concerts during that summer that they triggered economic booms in the respective host cities. In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for example, hotel rooms went for as much as $2,500 downtown on the night of the concert. In terms of American culture, the analogy of gravity waves may fit. During an interview for television at her home (or one of her homes), Swift’s savvy business acumen was very evident; her marketing prowess was extraordinary. She even re-released her own songs, resulting in a huge financial windfall for what are really the same songs merely re-sung. It is not as if she had grown a new voice. Swift personifies American culture, whose “movers and shakers” seem “happy go lucky” on stage yet, behind the scenes, they tend to be lazar-focused on the business end. In short, considerable distance may exist between the societal image and the private business practitioner, and the ethical element can get lost in the shuffle and excitement.

To be sure, economics was evident in the “Swiftie” phenomenon during the summer of 2023. According to Time, Swift “achieved a kind of nuclear fusion: shooting art and commerce together to release an energy of historic force.”[1] Her Eras concert tour "brought in a whopping $1.04 billion with 4.35 million tickets sold across 60 tour dates."[2] Not just any singer can make such a haul and even trigger municipal economic booms and saturate the media’s attention worldwide simply by going on tour. Also, the magazine is clear that such a gargantuan amount of money brought in is not “something we often chalk up to the alignments of planets and fates,” for “giving too much credit to the stars ignores [Swift’s] skill and her power.”[3] In particular, her intense and sustained focus on every conceivable way, such as by re-recording existing songs and bundling them (admittedly with some songs from her vault) into albums in their own right, attending to merchandise and actively using the media for free publicity, to increase revenue leveraged, or made use of, her tremendous market power that was unrivaled; she dominated the airwaves during the summer of 2023. The “Taylor’s Version” albums provide us with an interesting case study wherein hype, money, and ethics are all in the mix.

According to Time, “Swift began releasing re-recordings of her back catalog in 2021 in an effort to reclaim her original music, after her initial label Big Machine Records sold her masters to Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings in 2019. ‘Now Scooter has stripped me of my life’s work, that I wasn’t given an opportunity to buy,’ Swift wrote. . . . ‘Essentially, my musical legacy is about to lie in the hands of someone who tried to dismantle it.’”[4] I don’t doubt the authenticity of her emotive motivation here. In the vernacular, she was pissed.  Even so, if she had signed a contract with Big Machine Records giving it the unilateral right to sell the masters of her songs, and the purchaser has the legal right of use, then she had no legal or ethical claim to preempt the sale or be sold the masters outright. Of course, if labels write heavily unfair contracts essentially reflecting the commercial interests of the labels, taking advantage of the lack of bargaining power of new signers, ethical critique is fair game.

By its very nature, a contract is a coming together of (at least) two interests, with consideration (money) given by one party to the other. A residential lease, for instance, should reflect both interests. It should not restrict use of premises to be narrowed down to reflect only how the property owner would use the space or would like the space to be used. A property owner might prefer a “no guest” policy, but such as “policy”—the very word being presumptuous—violates reasonable use of premises. Furthermore, the property owner’s personal religious or moral lifestyle, for instance, should not bind the counterparty as long as the property itself is not damaged. “I don’t believe in eating meat, so you are not allowed to use the kitchen of your apartment to cook meat,” for instance, is presumptuous and dogmatic. More to the point, such a clause would violate or nullify the fact that in receiving rent, the property owner is selling the use of the space (as long as the property is not damaged). The mantra, “It’s my house,” taken as an absolute, is circumscribed when use is being sold for consideration (i.e., rent). Having it both ways is selfish and childish.

Whether or not Taylor Swift originally signed a one-sided contract is beyond my ability to investigate, given the information that I have. Her fans did not know either, and so, because of her emotional claim and her “star power,” her ethical cause resonated. Even so, it can be asked whether it is ethical to have hyped “Taylor’s Version” albums to the extent that buyers were willing to pay the full price of an album even if they had most of the songs already. To be sure, the “Taylor’s Versions” included “vault tracks”—songs not on the original albums. She also updated some lyrics. Even so, it can be asked whether the additional work justifies a full price of a new album. It can also be asked whether customers having receipts for the original albums, such as Fearless, should have been able to buy Taylor’s version at a discount. I submit that such a discount would be reasonable, given both the amount of additional work on Taylor’s part and the substance of the product (i.e., the extent to which it differs from the originals). A few songs from the vault and some new lyrics do not render the albums commensurate with albums filled with previously unreleased songs.

If Swift’s motivation was indeed to gain control of her songs, she should have agreed to a discount. Fearless (Taylor’s Version) had the biggest debut for any album in 2021, with 722.7 million on-demand streams in the U.S. that year.[5] Surely at least some of those customers already possessed the original album. Of course, the irrational exuberance that would cause such a customer to buy the same songs again can also be criticized, but many of her customers were teenagers and thus easily taken in even by orchestrated hype of good feeling seemingly aloft from the earthly taint of business strategizing. My point is that it is no accident that Taylor Swift made a lot of money essentially recycling songs ready for re-singing. She was not merely trying to regain control over her work. I submit that she was acting as a business woman, and a darn good one at that.  Her true identity—her driving financial ambition—was practically hidden under the blinding glitter of the “nuclear fusion” that Time magazine describes. My point is that the resulting sonic boom was orchestrated to coordinate and max out both the hype and the revenue. Behind the moral cause, behind the curtains, Swift’s financial acumen could be said to be a subterranean force of nature.

Such a force tends to be obscured, obfuscated, or, more often, intentionally hidden in the American entertainment industry. Similarly, elected representatives in Congress or the White House keep both their fowl tongues and their raw desire for power far away from the reach of microphones and cameras. In short, the sheer difference between private personas, including agendas, motivations, and even personalities, and the public images on the societal stage is astounding. Especially in politics in a representative democracy, this differential is a real problem that goes beyond the financial harm to young “Swifties” who have been subtly manipulated into buying (mostly recycled) songs at full price.

---

1. Jordan Valinsky, “Taylor Swift Named Time’s ‘Person of the Year,” CNN.com, December 6, 2023.
2. Maria Sherman, "Taylor Swift's Eras Tour Is the First Tour to Gross Over $1 Billion, Pollster Says," APNews.com, December 8, 2023.

3. Valinsky, “Taylor Swift Named Time’s ‘Person of the Year.”
4. Mariah Espada, “Taylor Swift Is Halfway Through Her Rerecording Project. It’s Paid Off Big Time,” Time, July 6, 2023.
5. Ibid.

When Retail Marketing Goes Too Far

Marketing by retailers can go too far; this claim should be no surprise. That this has been so even when the marketing comes at the expense of existing customers may be less well-known and thus be in need of some elaboration. The underlying culprit, I submit, is psychological: difficulty with keeping within even societal and even self-imposed constraints. Put simply, the difficulty is with limits. The mentality is thus at the child-stage of development.

Service to the customer is a business mantra. In fact, an increasing number of retailers refer to their respective customers as guests. Target was among the first to do so. Then restaurants followed and even some of the services. One hair salon in Scottsdale, Arizona, even has guest parking, but the signs are technically lies; the slots are actually for customers, who have been conveniently renamed guests. It might be concluded that American business has been trying to outdo itself in how the customer is treated.

Some indications, however, suggest that existing customers may have been increasingly overlooked, at least as of 2019, in favor of gaining additional customers. In some fast-food restaurants in the U.S., for example, promotional signs on the large windows adjacent to the tables obstructed the ability of sitting customers to look outside the building. After spending money for a meal, who wants to look at giant promotions geared to prospective customers approaching or passing by the restaurant?

On an increasing number of city buses, advertisements covering the side windows made it more difficult for existing customers to see outside the bus, whether to enjoy the ride or determine where to get off the bus. In effect, all this says to the existing customers: the people outside are more important than you so regrettably we have to disrupt or detract your experience with us in some small ways. The regret is a lie, as is the lack of choice in the matter, and the impact on customer experience can be large. 

When the value given to existing customers is lessened while the price held constant or even increased, the gain goes to the business and the loss to the existing customers. Even in being hampered in trying to see outside a bus, the passenger suffers a loss because he or she would otherwise get the benefits of being able to see clearly through the windows. In fact, why even have windows if they are to be covered in various colors? Even the feeling of having been passively slighted in some way is part of the loss. From the standpoint of the business, existing customers are a given; the aim is to "grow" the business by attracting new customers even if at the expense of the current ones. 

The practice of taking away from the value that customers receive implies an unwillingness to be constrained even by the value-exchange set up by the companies. Perhaps the hope is that few passengers would notice the change and eventually it would be regarded as part of the status quo. The expectation of being able to see clearly through a bus window is replaced. 

Even in terms of cultural norms regarding the American holidays, retailers have gradually pushed up Christmas displays to September. You know something is wrong when you see Christmas trees and decorations then in front of the Halloween decorations and costumes. This shows that some manager did not even feel constrained to give each holiday its due. This can be viewed as an extension of not feeling constrained (by the existing value-exchange) to give existing customers their due. 

At another Lowes, the Christmas displays completely blocked the Halloween pumkins from being visible from the front aisle. 

Managers Going too Far: Targeting Linguistic Over-Reaches

The practice of using words beyond their contexts such that the words’ meanings are tortured and yet are pretended not to be was a trend in modern America during the 2010’s. The business manager instigated the trend in order to “gild the lily,” which means to claim more than is warranted or merited. Astonishingly, people dismissed or perhaps even didn’t recognize such over-reaches. Perhaps as long as people have used language, egos gripped in the pursuit of gain have presumed that keeping to a word’s extant meanings in a language is somehow optional.

To be sure, the malleability of words is one way in which a language changes in order to incorporate societal changes.  “I’ll text you tomorrow,” for instance, uses the noun text as a verb. Similarly, “I’ll email you later today.” These two verbifications did a lot to bring the English language up to date in the twenty-first century. Such adaptations are natural rather than pushed from an agenda.

A motive from an agenda pushes through, insisting that a word can be used all of a sudden in another context in which the meaning does not apply. In other words, the agenda reverberates from the sheer over-intensity of the insistence, or declaration, even above objections that are correct. Once a manager of a Target retail store insisted to me that the shoppers are guests rather than mere customers. Her tone was so forceful I could hear aggression in it. That manager was like arrogance on stilts during a flood; her claim should have been underwater.

Gilding the lily even more, some of those guests are members. It was strange indeed to be asked by a cashier, “Are you a member?” “Of what,” I would naturally wonder, as clubs had members and Target was not a club because it had customers who were not members (and even the members didn’t have to pay dues!). In short, the company was going too far in insisting that its customers be called guests and members, as if the company were a house or club, respectively. When I have guests over and I give them gifts, I don’t charge them for it. In no sense is a customer a guest, especially considering how bad customer service can be. To find an employee referring to a customer as a guest and yet treating the person very badly demonstrates a real disconnect within the employee’s mind, and yet this has been common even since customers “became” (as if naturally) guests and members. Nothing had changed on the store end in terms of customer service, so insisting that customers are to be called guests and members was to pretend that the commercial relationship was something more than it really is. It is this something more that points to the underlying motive: trying to get something more by pretending something that really is not the case. Wanting to pretend that the customer is something better, rather than that word somehow had been sullied and thus naturally to be jettisoned, was the motive. Telling customers that they are guests rather than customers would reflect instead on the company’s arrogance and being in a state of denial.
As another example of going too far in order to claim more than is warranted, Target also designated its retail-area heads as area owners. So, one employee is the owner of the home furnishings, for instance. In a corporation, the stockholders own the corporate wealth collectively. To bestow the title of owner onto an employee simply because he or she is in charge of a given area of the store implies that the employee’s authority is more than it really is. In the process, the meaning of the word owner is violated without even an acknowledgement. Again, a state of denial plays the mental function of protecting the over-reach such that even the over-reach is not recognized as such. It is almost like the managers were living in fantasy lands governed by the simple rule: if changing a word’s meaning helps the business, then make the change and pretend that no such change was made. .

Facebook Secretly Shared Users' Friend's Data with Business Partners: A Case of Betrayal

According to The New York Times at the end of 2018, internal documents generated at Facebook in 2017 showed that the company “gave Microsoft, Amazon, Spotify, and others far greater access to people’s data” even after having raised a privacy wall than Facebook had disclosed.[1] That is, Facebook effectively exempted some of its business partners from the company’s privacy rules without notifying users. In many quarters, this would be called lying, which in turn would suggest a sordid management at Facebook. The more subtle astonishment, I submit, is that 2.2 billion users had stayed with Facebook after the hidden use of personal data for political purposes. The partnership between Facebook and Cambridge Analytica had hardly been made in heaven. Why such enduring trust in spite of external data being clear grounds for losing trust and giving up using Facebook? How many betrayals would be necessary? In literal marriages, trust can be lost “like that!” Similarly, when a child even unconsciously loses trust for her parents, the solid basis of trust in a normal parent-child relationship is lost most likely forever. Why has Facebook—a distant business punctuated by lies—get a pass?

The newspaper’s valuable discovery offered the fullest picture yet of the wide extent, or scale, to which personal data was traded through at least 2018 “by some of the most powerful companies in Silicon Valley and beyond.”[2] In fact, The New York Times points in its investigative reporting to the “extraordinary power over the personal information of its 2.2 billion users—control it has wielded with little transparency or outside oversight.”[3] The lack of transparency should be a giant red flag concerning the unethical climate at Facebook’s “upper” management levels. Betrayal drips off the screen in Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to allow “Microsoft’s Bing search engine to see the names of virtually all Facebook users’ friends without consent” and give “Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages.”[4] Facebook also “permitted Amazon to obtain users’ names and contact information through their friends, and [Facebook] let Yahoo view streams of friends’ posts . . . despite public statements that [Facebook] had stopped that kind of sharing years earlier.”[5] Specifically, in the wake of revelations (not from Facebook!) that the company had allowed a political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, to use user data to help Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, Zuckerberg publicly claimed that his company was instituting stricter privacy protections for users. Therein lies a lie, for he said nothing about permitting gaping exemptions.  

Even so, how many of Facebook’s users left because of the Cambridge Analytica scandal?  Astonishing, or maybe not!, because over two billion users remained, which implies that plenty of users behaved as herd animals, going on as usual in spite of having reason to delete their accounts. Many of the users must have sensed, even if unconsciously, that their trust in Facebook no longer had a viable foundation (i.e., a basis in fact). With the subsequent revelations of the New York Times detailed here, would what was by that point a squalid track record register in the minds of the 2.2 billion users? If not, a gap would still exist between users including personal information and pictures and trust that Facebook would not betray those users yet again. In a perfect market, viable competitors to Facebook would exist and consumers would--especially given the low barriers to entry--readily switch over. Perhaps Facebook's practice of buying up potential competitors early (and for a lot of money) had rendered the market oligarchical. Yet even this would not explain why the status quo had been favoring Facebook rather than the naive, oblivious, or neutral users. I submit that this case represents a market failure from the standpoint of competitive, free-market Capitalism. 
Lest it be assumed that the U.S. Government would increase oversight on Facebook (and other social-media companies), would any action really come from government (including regulatory oversight) even as wealthy mega-companies like Facebook (and its “partners”!) could doubtlessly make very substantial political campaign contributions? Given this conflict of interest, at least in the U.S., relying on the users to protect themselves seems naive. On this problem, I submit that the explanation lies in psychology. Are human beings--or most humans--too prone to act on an instinctual urge to act as herd animals rather than as trend-setting individuals? Nietzsche thought so, and he argues in his books that such people are herdish because they are weak. Can 2.2 billion people be weak, or is the problem external, such as a dearth of information or simply a calculation that what comes free in a Facebook account is worth more than the company's betrayals? 

See also the booklet, Taking the Face Off Facebook, available at Amazon. On Nietzsche's moral philosophy applied to business ethicists and managers alike, see On the Arrogance of False Entitlement: A Nietzschean Critique of Business Ethics and Management, available at Amazon.

---

1. Gabriel Dance, Michael LaForgia, and Nicholas Confessore, “As Facebook Raised a Privacy Wall, It Carved an Opening for Tech Giants,” The New York Times, December 18, 2018.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., italics added.

Customers as Members and Guests: Retail Fakeness Infecting Society

“Are you a member of the store?”  A salesperson at a Barnes & Nobles’ café department once asked me the question as I was preparing to pay for the coffee drink I had just ordered. Apparently, customers who had registered for a discount card were considered  “members of the store.” The same thing happened to me at a Borders store before that chain went bankrupt. There, the salesperson refused to take my “No, I am not a member” for an answer—as per company policy.

Let's be clear here: retail stores have customers, not members.  Shopping in a Walmart store especially is not at all like belonging to a country club. To put it bluntly, arrogance is the unavoidable bad odor that fills the air when a bottom-feeder retail presumes to have "guests" and "membors." Once an assistant manager of a Target store insisted that customers are guests even after I had pointed out that people do not have guests over to buy something. Ignoring or refuting a customer's reply adds not only further insult, but belies the original claim, for it is an oxymoron for a host or hostess to be rude to guests. 

Moreover, it is presumptuous for a retail company’s employees (including managers) to act (i.e. lie) as if they really believe that stores naturally have members or guests.  Clubs have members, and people who have guests over do not typically treat them to a sale, as in, "Come on over for dinner, but you have to buy something from me first." The retail employee does not think providing dinner is necessary, but is nevertheless orienting to the selling. If a business is open to the public, it does not make sense to refer to the general public as members or invited guests. The self-serving nature of the pretense or outright lie is too saccurine for my taste. In the domain of religion, such managerial employees would doubtless want a convenient religion that boils down to me, me, me. Only a people-pleaser could serve for long as the cleric in such congregations. 
Lastly, a rather slick elitism is implicit in explicitly distinguishing members from non-members, as in “are you a member?” Even in calling some customers "guests" and others "members" projects an "outsider/insider" dichotomy that is overdrawn (and may even involve passive aggression as well as power-aggrandizement). Is it really in a store's financial interest to make some of its customers feel second class? Imagine a Walmart cashier asking you, "Are you a member?" as if anyone would want to be one! You might break out in uncontrollable laughter. "How utterly arrogant for a bottom-feeder retailer even to assume that membership rightly applies there. 

Moreover, any culture highlighted by “members,” "guests," and “upgrades” being somehow pertaining to retail business may suffer from a more general societal trend that is not transparent. Too often, moderns pretend that vacuous retail phrases have substance--treating emptiness as though it were substance. Just because someone, even a manager, asserts that something is real does not make it so. Ultimately, if customers do not object to the arrogant and erroneous use of the words, member and guest, then the insufferable retail mentality that is fine with such vacuous misnomers is enabled. Pretty soon, the sordid practice could become ubiquitous not only in the business sector, but across society if it is highly commercialized as is the case in the United States relative to the European Union. 

When an employee in a store or at it's customer service call-bank says, “I’m sorry for your inconvenience,” or even uses the word "unfortunately" in such an emotionless tone that the speaker could not possibly feel bad about the customer's bad experience, absolutely no credence is to go with that stock (marketing) reply. It is really to say, "Even though you had a bad experience or have a complaint, we at the store want you to think that we acknowledge some responsibility or obligation due to the store's part." In fact, "we want you to go on buying things here as if the problem were so minor it could not warrant an apology with recompensense." In actuality, an apology without any compensation, monetarily or in terms of merchandise, is not only empty, but also quite insulting, for it is a subtle means of cheating the customer, or "guest." Do retailers really think their customers are so stupid as to think that everything is made right again by an easy apology? Even the authors of customer-service books admit that such apologies are so ubiquitous in business that they count for next to nothing. Who could possibly take such unemotional, easy "apology sans renumeration as a real apology, rather than as a pre-arranged talking point that can even feel as a slap. Authentic apologies would be backed up by some economic sacrifice, rather than a coupon-enticement to buy again as if the matter had been resolved to the customer's real satisfaction). Rarely does a customer demand compensation as a prerequisite for accepting the apology, and also for any coming back to the store. A business is an economic entity; one must treat it as such and transact in economic terms. By a business's own reckoning, "Sorry for any inconvenience" without any economic cost to the business can only be of a distant, hypothetical value unless most of the customers are suckers.

More on this topic is in On the Arrogance of False Entitlement: A Nietzschean Critique of Business Ethics and Management, which is available at Amazon.

The Underbelly of Corporate Charity as Corporate Social Responsibility

Why do corporate managements spend corporate money on charities? The obvious reason is to reduce the amount of corporate income tax due. Yet another motive, not as transparent, has to do with reputational capital, and that motive may also explain corporate social responsibility.
Achieving the low 12.6% effective tax rate was undoubtedly on Bernie Madoff’s mind when he made his firm's charitable contributions. This rationale was by no means unusual at the time.  Furthermore, Madoff would not have been above using charity in order to display himself as a very wealthy person. According to Martin Press, a tax attorney, “If [Madoff] actually gave the money to charity, it is a common theme of Ponzi scheme people to make large charitable contributions to show people how wealthy they are.”[3] The perception of Madoff as a financially successful personally rendered him trustworthy in being capable of making investors rich, and the apparent charitable giving gave the impression of trustworthiness in its normative sense (i.e., honesty and integrity).

Similarly, moreover, corporate strategies may include programs under the rubric of corporate social responsibility as a means of cultivating the impression that the corporation itself is financially successful and trustworthy both in terms of competence and fairness. That is, corporate social responsibility may be more about amassing reputational capital for the corporation than any acknowledged responsibility to society (other than to provide consumers with effective products). 
Lastly, charitable giving can be motivated by the wrong assumption that it can make up morally for unethical policies. In the case of Bernie Madoff, the firm's business was inherently unethical as a ponzi scheme. Besides providing merely a patina of morality, therefore, charitable giving can also be "rationalized" in corporate boardrooms or CEO offices as making up for any unethical policies or conduct. Like any patina, charitable giving specifically and corporate social responsibility more generally cannot make up for a sordid company culture and any unethical policies or conduct within a company. Put another way, fighting the temptation to have an unethical company when expedient is worth more ethically than having a corporate-responsibility program. Theoretically speaking, such a program is not primarily ethical; rather, it narrows the gap between existent corporate and societal norms, whereas an ethical policy or conduct is so because it survives critique of the underlying ethical justification. The difference here is between the is and the ought. To get ought out of is (i.e., business ethics out of a CSR program) is, according to David Hume, the naturalistic fallacy. Norms exist, and therefore are, whereas ethical policies and conduct pertain to what should be. 

Sources:

1.  John Waggoner, “Madoff ‘Donated’ a Lot to Charity,” USA Today, December 13, 2013.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

The Increasing Decadence in American Business (and Society): The Case of On-Screen Distractions during Television Programs

While watching Lord of the Rings on TBS in 2010, I noticed that the network was posting not only its logo on the bottom right of the screen, but also advertising for its programming on the bottom left. Also, “more movie, less commercials” was written to accompany the logo. What really got to me during the movie was when pictures advertising a television show were shown. They took up almost an eighth of the screen and thus could not but distract the viewer from watching the movie. I decided I would not watch movies on networks that compromise or prostitute their own programing in order to sell themselves while "in progress." It is like sitting down at a restaurant and having the waitor sell me on other dishes while I am trying to enjoy the one that I'm eating. “I just want to enjoy this fine meal, thank you,” any discerning customer would be wont to say. Once at Starbucks, the customer in front of me at the register was paying $25 for a variety of products.  As I was thinking that the store had made a good sale, the clerk tried to sell the customer on a certain food item for the next visit--as if the present sale was not enough.  The same propensity wherein nothing is ever enough is evinced by the television networks that can't seem to restrain themselves from adding more and more self-promotions onto the screen during their own programming.  These networks are playing off the mitigated nature of the additions being incremental, and thus not objectionable to the average viewer. 

It is simply bad business to interfere with a customer’s enjoyment of a product by trying to promote the business or another product. The over-reaching has the bad smell of self-indulgence knowingly at others’ expense. It is impossible to enjoy a movie while animated characters run around the bottom of the screen to get the viewers' attention. The perpetrators ought to be regarded as children wherein if we give them an inch, they will indeed take a mile. Sadly, too many of us allow ourselves to be strung along the slippery slope--perhaps some viewers don't even notice the incremental intrusions. The smell of the network managers' over-reaching ought to be emetic, but perhaps the stench is so ubiquitous that we as a soceity are innoculated against even smelling it.  One can hope that one day, we shall wake up to the decadence and "smell the coffee." Perhaps only the loss of a significant viewership would mean that the sordid managers will be out of their jobs–unable to earn their high salaries for trying to manipulate us in new subterfuges. That, ladies and gentlemen, would be justice and a more salubrious society.  In the meantime, American television will increasingly come to reflect the lowest common denominator in the viewership because that is where the numbers are. In fact, perhaps it could be said that this nature of television reflects the values that are taking hold in American society.

Do we as a society value mutual respect and self-restraint, or are we too tolerant of selfishness and manipulatory behavior? Do we not value strength, but instead enable weakness? Are the stars of reality shows famous for fifteen minutes because they evince our society's actual values?  In other words, have we become a self-absorbed, petty people without realizing it?  If so, the television networks may simply be us taking advantage because it is condoned.

Advertisers Remove Ads on YouTube: Fair to YouTube and Video-Producers?

One day after Thanksgiving in 2017, “a fresh wave of advertisers suspended commercials on Youtube after their ads showed up next to videos that appeared to attract pedophile viewers.”[1] Youtube had removed ads from roughly 3 million videos, but the company’s use of human and AI checkers simply could not keep pace with the number of uploaded videos. Even so, Diageo, maker of Smirnoff and Johnnie Walker (alcohol drinks), announced it would hold off its ads until “appropriate safeguards are in place.”[2] Mars and Adidas took a similar line. The question is whether those advertisers were being fair to Youtube and even the producers of the videos.

After a similar revolt the previous March, YouTube and hired more human reviewers and furnished advertisers with new tools to control where their ads would appear. Did not those companies have some responsibility to keep tabs on their ads, especially given the incentive to do so.  “Advertisers don’t want their brands associated with objectionable content and as well can face criticism if their advertising money goes to support the videos’ creators.”[3] It would not have been prudent to leave it to YouTube to review the ads, especially if the advertisers knew that YouTube was short-staffed. Unlike the advertisers, YouTube’s management had little incentive; the pull-out of certain advertisers in March, 2017 had “little impact” on Alphabet’s (Google’s) overall business. In fact record profits were posted.

Of course, the ability and will to review ads, whether by the advertisers or YouTube, would not in itself have caught the cases in which the videos themselves were salubrious and yet received unsavory comments from viewers. An advertiser could hardly be blamed for placing an ad in such a video; neither would YouTube be culpable in having permitted the video in the first place. So even if sordid comments could be readily removed, the incentives would be lacking. To be sure, YouTube is responsible for removing such comments, and just because blame would not be justified concerning innocent videos does not necessarily mean that such blame would not be exacted anyway.

The nuances of responsibility suggest that the reaction of the advertisers was rather blunt and even impulsive, and not entirely fair to YouTube and the video-producers. Distinguishing between objectionable and proper videos, and then between the latter and disgusting comments would be part of a smarter, more refined approach.

---

[1] Stu Woo and Sam Schehner, “YouTube Deals With Another Advertiser Backlash,” The Wall Street Journal, November 25-26, 2017.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

The Fiat 500: The American Taste for Convenience Revealed

One means of doing cross-cultural comparison is by contrasting consumer tastes; such proclivities tend to evince societal mores by which societies can be perceived to be distinctive. In the case of the E.U. and U.S., Fiat, a European auto company that controls Chrysler, an American company, is discovering some societal differences as it refashions the Fiat 500 for American customers.

For example, the pod of drink holders had to be enlarged to hold American-size “supersize” drinks. According to Fabio DiMuro, chief engineer of the 500, the in-car beverage concept is so foreign to Europeans that the workers didn’t understand his exhortations for more and bigger holders. The American taste for larger portions is known to restaurant owners and managers in the United States, but what does the preference say about the society and its people? Is it as simple as greed—a desire for more and to excess? Or is it simply a preference for convenience—filling up more so the next meal can be pushed back to make room for other activities? 

In terms of convenience, “Americans consider all-season tires a must,” whereas Europeans keep two sets (which must be changed with the advent of the snow season). Of course, this comparison over-generalizes, for we are talking about the Northern states in the E.U. and U.S. Even so, the northerners in America tend to be willing to sacrifice some traction in the snow for the convenience of not having to take the car to the garage to have the tires changed.

Furthermore, the fuel tank of the 500 was enlarged from 10.6 to 14.5 gallons “for longer distances typical in the U.S.”  The larger tank also enables American in-town drivers to drive more before having to fill up. The interstate highway system sports enough gas stations that the longer-distances rationale is perhaps specious; it probably comes from the European misconception of the U.S. being like one of the E.U.’s countries but with a larger territory. The U.S., an empire-level union of republics, is qualitatively as well as quantitatively distinct from a large state like Texas or France.

Returning to the matter of convenience, the comfort-factor may be a relevant difference. The U.S., having excelled in terms of material goods in the decades after World War II, may in the twenty-first century be more accustomed to comfort. Hence, the American 500 is to have an armrest added to the driver’s seat.

A stress on comfort may also explain why “lots more” insulation is needed in the American 500, “to keep it quiet enough for Americans.” This is a rather odd phrase, considering the growth of the car stereo industry in the 1970s and 1980s. Nevertheless, the notion of one’s car as a personal cocoon of sorts resonates. Might this be a manifestation of the individualism for which Americans are so well known? 

If one’s home is one’s castle, one’s car might be one’s bubble through which one passes through public space. Considering the “road rage” phenomenon and general impoliteness, the greater insulation might suggest that Americans are in general rather unfriendly when we are out and about. Hence there are “screening” devices such as fraternities and sororities, as well as country clubs and other private associations. The general American public may contain too many loud, pushing or boorish people to be palatable to the elite.

In general, James Healey’s article on the American Fiat 500 is not flattering to Americans, but perhaps Healey is pointing to indications of undesirable traits that we (for I am an American) should face about ourselves and our society. I for one have noticed that where strangers communicate without any purpose, such as in a store, politeness is the norm. However, as soon as a purpose is added, such as buying and selling a car, renting an apartment or room, or resolving a bill at a restaurant, presumptuous tends to raise its ugly head.

I don’t know if it is arrogance or a presumption that the worst is apt to be in others, but I would not disagree with a European assessment of American society in general as anti-social or antagonistic. It is perhaps no wonder that houses are castles and cars are insulated bubbles. Of course, I am over-generalizing, as the U.S. is composed of various cultures. Once flying from New York to Seattle, I was struck by the difference in how strangers treated each other; then I realized (aided by a few anti-New Yorker comments from Seattle airport employees) I had just flown over a continent! To render a continent as akin to a European state writ large is to miss the vital distinction between an empire and a kingdom politically and geographically.

Another possible source of my over-generalizing may be that modern society itself could be too much inclined to the road of most convenience.  Europeans may have their rankles as well, even as they differ from those of Americans. For example, the whole “peers/commoners” thing can be read as a matter of convenience by some at the expense of others. Such a matter of convenience is not apt to show up in an analysis of the Fiat 500. In general, we moderns may be too spoiled and too presumptuous when it comes to dealing with strangers. Humility, it seems, is out of fashion in modernity, at least in the public square. If so, my cultural critique goes well beyond the American shores. Although war and poverty are not to be wished for, it would be nice if greater human solidarity could be realized amid our lattes and 500s.

Source:

James Healey, “Fiat 500: Little Car Shoulders Huge Responsibility in U.S.,” USA Today, June 1, 2011, p. 5B.

Apple’s CEO Manufactures a Human Right

People with disabilities represented 19% of the U.S. population in 2015—exactly 25 years after the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became a federal law.[1] With computer technology being by then integral to daily life, the matter of accessibility came to the fore under the normative principle of equal, or universal, access. With major tech companies getting behind this banner, one question is whether they did so simply to sell more computers and software—better access translating into more customers. I contend that the stronger the normative claim being made, the greater the exploitation of the underlying conflict of interest.

In 2015, the American computer sector still suffered from “a lack of industry-wide expertise in accessibility development.”[2] So companies including Facebook, Microsoft, and Yahoo put together the Teaching Accessibility program to teach engineers, designers, and researchers how to include accessibility development in their skill-sets. "Increasing awareness and accessibility learning through core education, academic leadership, learning tools, industry initiatives, and partnerships with disability organizations will further enable graduates in relevant disciplines to enter the workforce and begin creating future technologies that are truly inclusive," Eva LaManna, policy manager for AAPD, said in a statement.[3] The premise, according to Larry Goldberg at Yahoo, is that making tech products accessible “is simply the right thing to do.”[4] Of course, doing so would not hurt sales either. This point undercuts the credibility of Goldberg’s normative claim, for it would be naïve to suppose that he and his colleagues would be motivated by “the right thing to do” were it not in the company’s financial interest. In other words, I contend that the normative claim is sheer marketing designed to garner the company reputational capital and at the same time advertise to the disabled.

Although Apple was conspicuously absent, the company had been training its engineers in the development of accessibility features. Indeed, the CEO, Tim Cook, wrote on July 24, 2015, went further than Goldberg in asserting the value of accessibility for everyone. “Accessibility rights are human rights. Celebrating 25yrs of the ADA, we’re humbled to improve lives with our products.”[5] To claim that a right is a human right is of course easy; the assertion may simply be a way of saying that something is very important. That is to say, if you value something highly, one way of expressing this is by asserting that it is a right—in fact, a human right. This implies that the thing that you value should be valued by everyone. He is essentially universalizing his maxim, making it a universal normative law. Obviously, we can wind up with loads of human rights going well beyond sustainability this way. Cook was indeed making a claim that human rights extend beyond needs, and thus are potentially limitless, unless access to computer technology was at the time essential to survival in the interdependent society.

If accessibility was at the time vital to survival, then government may have had an obligation to see to it that every person has access to a computer regardless of wherewithal to pay. This point presupposes that survival itself is a human right. Interestingly, Cook’s assertion that the right to accessibility is a human right can be interpreted as a claim obligating Apple to see to it that every person has access to a computer regardless of ability to pay. Faced with the implication that the company must hand out free computers (and accessibility software) to the poor, Cook might have sought to walk back his statement to something like, “At Apple, we believe it is important that computers be accessible to people with disabilities.” In retrospect, the man’s human-right claim may seem over the top. His conflict of interest may explain why he went so far without taking into consideration the implications.

For one thing, he may have been seeking to tout Apple’s record on accessibility. This is, after all, why Apple had not joined the training initiative. At the time, the iOS operating system included features like voice over, “speak screen,” dictation, zoom, and support for Braille displays.[6] To the extent that Apple had a sustainable competitive edge in accessibility, Cook had a huge financial incentive to make as bold a claim as possible. In business terms, a strategic competitive advantage should be highlighted in marketing so the potentially high profitability is more likely to be realized.

Interestingly, the marketing dimension itself undercuts the message in more than one way. First, the self-interest belies the claim of humility, and possibly even the claim of wanting foremost to improve lives. Given the manager’s fiduciary duty to the stockholders, his primary motive is to increase profits. Second, readers of Cook’s claim that accessibility is a human right can justifiably doubt the validity of the claim itself because Cook had a vested commercial interest in making the claim. That is, greater accessibility means more people are using computers, and thus are potential new customers of Apple products. Cook had the motive, therefore, to make the claim even if doesn’t believe it to be true, and to beg off any inconvenient implications such as the obligation to give away computers to people unable to afford them. In terms of Kant’s ethics, that Cook’s maxim cannot be universalized without internal contradiction (i.e., everyone should have a computer, but only if they can afford it) renders the claim unethical. In other words, it would unethical for Cook to have made the claim then refuse to give away computers.

In short, public statements by CEOs should not be taken at face value because more is probably behind the assertions than meets the eye. I suspect that the general public is naïve concerning such statements; we are too willing to assume that persons of high stature societally—and this includes CEOs of large companies—are good natured, for we don’t have access to the discussions that go on inside corporations. We are not familiar with how business managers think, and what motivates them. We suppose them to be like us, and we do not tend to carefully craft our utterances to manipulate other people in a self-aggrandizing way. So we take a statement such as Cook’s at face value. He claimed that computer-accessibility rights are human rights, and thus every person has a just claim regardless of ability to pay, and yet he clearly did not mean to suggest that, for Apple would then be obligated, and that would not be in line with the bottom line.  

---

[1] “IOD Report Finds Significant Health Disparities for People with Disabilities,” Institute on Disability/UCED, August 25, 2011.

[2] Lorenzo Litato, “Silicon Valley Vows to Improve Tech for People with Disabilities,” The Huffington Post, July 24, 2015.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Larry Goldberg, “Teaching Accessibility: A Call to Action from the Tech Industry,” Yahoo (accessed July 25, 2015).

[5] Alexander Howard, “Apple CEO Tim Cook: ‘Accessibility Rights Are Human Rights,” The Huffington Post, July 24, 2015.

[6] Ibid.

The Huffington Post Gilds the Lily: Facebook’s IPO Plummets?

On the day of its IPO, Facebook issued at $38 and went to a high of $45 before returning to near its issue price (closing at $38.23). On the next trading day, the price fell to about $34 in the early afternoon. This represents about 10% off the issue price. The Huffington Post headlined “Stock Plummets,” which must have been irresistible to anyone who had bought the stock. The Huff was using the $45 high as its benchmark, from which the $34 price represents a 25% drop. As if that were a plummeting, using the 10% off figure would have made the self-aggrandizing headline too obvious. At the very least, the headline detracts from the credibility of the Huffington Post.

The full essay is at "Taking the Face Off Facebook."