You can't sue Microsoft either now.

[o.pwuaioc]

Citation needed.

Both positive statements you've made.

Ok, so positive statement 1, they set up the necessary legislation to keep customers from getting shafted too hard. Do I really need to dig up the numerous posts from Niode to that effect?

Positive statement 2, we have people who expect a company to have some sort of moral sense. Please reread the thread.

You've changed your first statement. You actually said, "[In] Europe everyone expects companies to only think about their bottom line." (Emphasis mine.)

As for statement 2, a few people here are not the same as what the majority actually believe, or even vote. What specific American legislation can you think of that forces a company to "have some sort of moral sense"?

[retrosportsgamer]

pubic good

lol.

:snicker:

[MrPopo]

You've changed your first statement. You actually said, "[In] Europe everyone expects companies to only think about their bottom line." (Emphasis mine.)

Actually, both of us are dicing my first statement differently. The whole statement was that "They expect companies to only think about the bottom line and enact legislation to prevent too much fucking over of consumers". The first part is unnecessary clarification when the important part is the end result, which is the latter half and the part I used earlier.

As for statement 2, a few people here are not the same as what the majority actually believe, or even vote. What specific American legislation can you think of that forces a company to "have some sort of moral sense"?

Statement 2 said nothing about any legislation we may have enacted. It was speaking only towards public opinion. It's the only explanation I have for the numerous people I see, both on this forum and in my daily life, who are shocked when a company does something they consider to be morally wrong.

Dsh raised a good point earlier; our country has enacted legislature that cuts into companies' profits for the betterment of the consumer, such as the EPA regulations, the cigarette warning, and the USDA food grading system. So it's definitely something that can be pulled off.

[Hatta]

This isn't them attempting to defraud their customers, this is spin control, to try and protect the brand.

It's them trying to hide the fact that they were negligent.

Class action lawsuits regarding the PSN breach would have done nothing to improve the product nor would they have improved the lives of those affected by it

Class action lawsuits provide incentive for Sony to invest more in security in the future. Although the degree of negligence that Sony exhibited handling financial records should really be criminal.

[o.pwuaioc]

"They expect companies to only think about the bottom line and enact legislation to prevent too much fucking over of consumers."

I don't disagree with the second half of this, but the "and" in the middle means that both are true. Are both true? I still haven't seen any evidence for the first half.

[MrPopo]

This isn't them attempting to defraud their customers, this is spin control, to try and protect the brand.

It's them trying to hide the fact that they were negligent.

No, it was them making sure that only verified information went out. But I already know that in your eyes nothing a company does is in the right.

Class action lawsuits regarding the PSN breach would have done nothing to improve the product nor would they have improved the lives of those affected by it

Class action lawsuits provide incentive for Sony to invest more in security in the future. Although the degree of negligence that Sony exhibited handling financial records should really be criminal.

Not really. Having their network service down for several weeks was the incentive to invest more in security in the future. A class action lawsuit in that situation was just kicking them when they're down.

[noiseredux]

[Hazerd]

and people will still find a way to sue anyways.....

also arguing over this on a retro gaming forum isnt going anywhere

send a letter to your senator.

[Hatta]

Statement 2 said nothing about any legislation we may have enacted. It was speaking only towards public opinion. It's the only explanation I have for the numerous people I see, both on this forum and in my daily life, who are shocked when a company does something they consider to be morally wrong.

You're mistaking outrage for shock. There is nothing any company can do that would shock me with its depravity. I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see corporations lobbying for the repeal of the 13th amendment, I'd still be pissed off if it passed. The real WTF isn't that corporations are immoral profit seeking machines, it's that people tolerate the existence of immoral profit seeking machines.

[dsheinem]

. The real WTF isn't that corporations are immoral profit seeking machines, it's that people tolerate the existence of immoral profit seeking machines.

unlike you, because you bitch about it on a forum? I've mentioned that I'm sympathetic - to a certain extent - with your position. But posturing here does little if anything to fix the problem. seriously, let's see proof of the courage of your convictions, let's see something proactive, or gtfo.