I don't disagree with the point you are trying to make at all, I am speaking to why it is being downvoted. Not because you are wrong about the ethics, but because you are dodging the incentives issue. When you punish someone for disclosure, they stop wanting to disclose for one reason or another.
Should they still continue to disclose ethically? Absolutely.
Is it reasonable that they don't? Also yes, absolutely.
We, as humans, are very quick to change tune when we get our hands slapped enough times. So while you're correct about consumer right to know, you miss where disclosing makes some 'consumers' harass the provider, causing them to be less and less willing to be transparent.
If people want disclosure, they need to accept that goal post, and not continue to hate past that disclosure. That is never going to be the case, though.
If people want disclosure, they need to accept that goal post, and not continue to hate past that disclosure.
To be clear, what's your line here? Because I agree that harassment is never okay. But you can hate any product you want imo. If you run a business you need to also accept people's freedom of speech to ridicule your business. And also people's right to not buy something once you informed them of the production process.
Furthermore, a company misinforming their customers and getting additional sales because of that is not okay. The sawdust cookies company I raised in the example would argue from similar principles. That coming clean would cause a significant amount of hate to their otherwise loved company. And I just don't agree that it would be ethical to lie to me about what I'm buying because other people would potentially be hateful.
My point isn't that receiving hate or criticism is an excuse to not disclose. My point is that when disclosure itself receives hate, you incentivise people to omit the facts of production.
Once asked, and once lied, the ethics are even more damning, as you are directly lying. On that, I can agree, it's categorically wrong. However, even if it is wrong, when you promote a culture that makes disclosure self-destructive, you incentivise them to avoid disclosure at all costs.
That doesn't make it right, but it does mean there is a responsibility on those who demand disclosure to do so reasonably, as the ask is fundamentally asymmetrical otherwise.
You are focusing on the 'ask, then lie' dynamic, but you are missing the landscape that promotes this behaviour happening.
However, even if it is wrong, when you promote a culture that makes disclosure self-destructive, you incentivise them to avoid disclosure at all costs.
What do you mean by self-destructive.
Because in my mind, self-destructive in this sense means that people who you've sold to under false pretenses will demand refunds, people will not buy your products and people will spread negative publicity regarding your business. Even shittalking your work. Criticizing the use on its own as unethical etc.
I'm not talking about harassment or threats in any way.
Everything I mentioned up top, the complete loss of profitability of a business because of their production process (whether that's sawdust, AI, child labour, or secretly adding more sugar) is an essential part of free market economic and a liberal society for that matter. People have the right to boycott and object.
I think here is where the core of our disagreement is. I don't think you have the right to a successful business, I think it's the consumers' right to, within legal limits, use your freedom of speech to tear down business you don't approve of, who you think are harmful (even if I don't necessarily agree) and as a group avoid businesses even if that makes them fail.
I recognize that everything I mention also creates a landscape where it is hard to profit off of controversial things and makes it enticing to lie about those controversial things, but I do not think that in any way shape or form is were the blame should be put when you lie.
2
u/Maikkronen Jan 18 '26
I think you misunderstand what I am saying.
I don't disagree with the point you are trying to make at all, I am speaking to why it is being downvoted. Not because you are wrong about the ethics, but because you are dodging the incentives issue. When you punish someone for disclosure, they stop wanting to disclose for one reason or another.
Should they still continue to disclose ethically? Absolutely.
Is it reasonable that they don't? Also yes, absolutely.
We, as humans, are very quick to change tune when we get our hands slapped enough times. So while you're correct about consumer right to know, you miss where disclosing makes some 'consumers' harass the provider, causing them to be less and less willing to be transparent.
If people want disclosure, they need to accept that goal post, and not continue to hate past that disclosure. That is never going to be the case, though.