Personifying moral decisions is the wrong approach nine times out of ten.
Incentives and structures are more important than the character of the people or business plans. Neither company (nor any big public company) chooses principles when it would lose them large sums of money.
Both Google and Facebook sell adds but they do it differently. Facebook is in business where the gravity constantly pulls towards the type of decisions that Facebook does. Sure, Zuck could do better decisions, but even if he would he has only narrow options.
That's why you need government policies that alter the incentives.
I am not really personifying it besides the introductory line:
I am explaining that the mechanism is that Google cares foremost about attracting and retaining a somewhat socially and ecologically responsible (one could say as well leftwards as a synonym) staff.
The fact that elite scientists and engineers are leaning to the left is a demographics fact, not some opinion from me. And it can even been explained by how the education system endows its pupils with a set of values, meant to make them better citizens i.e. more responsible, and finally that means more on the left.
My argument was that "Google cares foremost" relevant to Facebook only as far as their business allows it, just like Facebook. There may be small percentage of something else but it's the main explanation.
This was my main criticism. What is your response to that?
Incentives and structures are more important than the character of the people or business plans. Neither company (nor any big public company) chooses principles when it would lose them large sums of money.
Both Google and Facebook sell adds but they do it differently. Facebook is in business where the gravity constantly pulls towards the type of decisions that Facebook does. Sure, Zuck could do better decisions, but even if he would he has only narrow options.
That's why you need government policies that alter the incentives.