zlacker

>>babelf+(OP)
> Lot of people critiquing this, but you can't deny the success.

You could say that about literally any shady business. Imagine seeing a PDF proving tobacco leaders knew for decades that it caused cancer and saying what you did.

Being monetarily successful does not mean you’re good or shouldn’t be criticised.

>>latexr+im
I'd love to see that document and I'm sure there's a lot to learn from it and a lot of knowledge to use for the good of humanity.

The fact that a shady business used some tactics to advance its cause doesn't automatically condemns the means.

>>ahmedf+zn
Most shady businesses can be boiled down to, “we exploit people for personal gain”.

Which is always bad.

>>Meetin+5o
Apple: exploits factory workers to fulfill the customer’s desire for status symbols.

McDonalds: exploits hunger by conditioning you to desire convenient, unhealthy, and ultimately unsatisfying food.

TikTok: exploits your dopamine to condition you to watch content, keeping you entertained with new quick doses constantly.

You can pick almost any major company and find some way they exploit someone else.

>>tourma+7q
> You can pick almost any major company and find some way they exploit someone else.

Correction, you can pick any extremely large corporation.

Very large (i.e. successful) exploit people by design. Businesses not willing to exploit people are at a disadvantage and can never be as successful as those that are willing to exploit others.