YES thanks for this! I've seen too many people justify something that could be considered immoral by invoking this "but it satisfies user needs" pseudo-argument.

I've seen a heck of a lot more people justify things by claiming to have objective moral knowledge. Throughout history, the most atrocious acts imaginable have been justified this way. I am much less worried about invoking the satisfaction of people's needs.

You can't convince people to go kill and die for you by saying they're just satisfying your needs. So you have to invent something people will actually buy, and this tends to be something about morality, religion or politics.

So what? There are so many ways to be wrong, why introduce an entirely different one into this discussion? It's a false dilemma.

Capitalist morality merely poses as amoral. The moment you propose a more sensible alternative, you're hit by moral arguments about terrible things happening when you interfere with the invisible hand (of Providence).

When we mention "satisfying people's needs", those with more money get more satisfaction. That's how markets work. Like advertisers (corporations paying other corporations to spread propaganda), nation-states (which must control their populaces pretty much by definition), etc.

The subtle distinction between "want" and "need" is at the root of this. What the user wants is at odds with what they need.

Who decides what they "need", if not the user in so much as what they "want"?

I'm terrified of others prescribing what's "needed" because someone else has decided what what's "wanted" isn't the best for them.

That's no freedom at all.

You can't look at it in a binary way. Of course it's a bad idea to prescribe people their needs. I wouldn't want someone telling me what I am to have for dinner. But there are also needs that are obviously better left unmet. For instance I may feel a need to take possession of your property. It's not a kind of freedom you'd want to grant to me.

I think it is rather binary, but I think your example in this case demonstrates a different principle.

Having my "needs" defined separately from my "wants" denies me my freedom. But that's different from you say, deciding to confiscate my things without due process.

> I'm terrified of others prescribing what's "needed" because someone else has decided what what's "wanted" isn't the best for them.

I'm equally terrified of others convincing you that what they have to offer is the best for you, with minor tweaks to "cover your needs"; yet that's the basis of profit-based marketing.

I respect your concern (I'm trying to be non-specific in terms of pronouns here, but it's hard), but that's a fear we have to live with, no? The notion that someone else's argument might be more persuasive than our own, that someone else's message might be accepted instead. Surely, there's something perverse about it, underhanded, or perhaps I'm just not enlightened enough, otherwise I wouldn't accept such a false pretense. Surely, if I'd been shown the light, and not doused in such propaganda, I'd make a better choice!

The problem with that of course, is that a lot of people can make that argument. And regardless of who's making the argument, be they weak or strong, they all rely on the premise that the person needs convincing of something, because to imagine that they might come to a conclusion that's not your own /by themselves/ is a terrifying thought.

I'm sorry, but I really can't condone the notion that some messages should be feared in that way, and that someone else knows what's best because they presume I do not.

It is great fun, when any previous authority is replaced by the logic of the market. What thrives, they say, deserves to thrive, what fails, deserves to fail. Their argument is, if people really wanted a better world, they would have it already. Which is of course foolish, the market doesn't care about good or evil.

"The market" is people. You just said that people don't care about good or evil. I submit that this is an exaggeration.

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a process whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

The market is not people, nor was it ever about people. It is about money and capital, and capital is not governed by moral principles.

Oh the market is about people when it commoditizes them, and that just makes the consequences even less moral.

A comment phrasing it as "market is people", and then comment about commoditizing... it reminds me of Soylent Green, which also is people. ;).

> Satisfying someone's needs doesn't justify anything. Not all needs are meant to be satisfied - especially if they conflict with the needs of others, whether directly or by generating externalities.

What cases are you talking about? If a consumer pays for something, they want it. What is the evil of supplying a consumer with what they want? If they don't want it they don't have to buy it. If they don't like it they don't have to use it. Ultimately, the decision is up to the consumer for what is the for them.

First of all, the consumer and the supplier do not form a closed system (regardless of what some ideologies would want one to believe). You have to account for the effects supplying a customer with something has on the third parties. Those are the externalities I've mentioned, and even Wikipedia has a lot of examples.

Secondly, you have to take a look at the aggregate effects. So for instance I may need a new, shittier way to spam web with ads, and there's a company who'll happily satisfy my needs. By having this transaction, I start earning more, and now my competitors see the strategy and all decide to adopt it. The end result is that web is more spammed, my advantage disappers, and the new solution probably costs more than the old one, but now no one can go back. A classic coordination problem[0].

Finally, as 'lostlogin points out downthread, what you want doesn't always equal to what you need.

[0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/, a day does not go by without me linking to it...

I like that page, and also the Non-Libertarian FAQ[1] linked on it, which saves me summing up my feelings on the topic.

I'd still love a good dissenting take on it. The one linked near the bottom is awful.

[1] http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html

[EDIT] Now includes the link!

> The end result is that web is more spammed, my advantage disappers, and the new solution probably costs more than the old one, but now no one can go back.

These are not the only players in the game like you believe. Those who advertise more effectively on the web have more of an advantage over those who advertise via other media and those who don't advertise at all. And, as ads are more spammy and in-your-face, the advertised products get bought more whether all competitors are spamming or only some. Advertised products are bought more than they would be if the ads were mild or there were no ads at all.

PS: Thanks for the blog link it looks very interesting, I'll read it later.

And in doing so, you create a larger market for anti newer-shittier-spam ads, with the potential to erase ads for anyone who cares enough.

Which is strictly worse than not creating that market at all. It's just resources going to waste over the pointless zero-sum games, and that's exactly another reason where "satisfying user needs" doesn't cut it as a justification.

So, are you going to determine for us what people are allowed to put on their websites?

I admire your perseverance T. The doctrine that the free market leads to truth is difficult to dispel.

Software and hardware are sufficiently complex that the user has only the vaguest idea of what they actually bought. They cannot possibly make a fully informed decision and have to go on partial information.

I don't think it's sensible to say that customers "wanted" VW cars with "defeat devices". In that case, it's not even clear how much of the vendor company knew what was in the product.

Clearly VW engaged in deception of the customer as they cheated their test results. Customers are protected from such deception by the law.

My point was to criticise the "Internet Dream" utopian fairy tale advocated by commenter TEMPORAL--where a user gets everything but pays nothing--and to explain that the internet's commercialisation is perfectly OK.

I think there's a legitimate question to ask about how some kinds of commercialisation (selling privacy; expensive in-app purchases bought by children or compulsive gamblers; etc) are in some way deceptive or dishonest. It's certainly not as simple as a direct upfront payment for goods or services.

What if they want something illegal/immoral/harmful to others?

That's where the government intervenes by legislating, thereby society is protecting individuals from themselves (and from harming others).

I don't see how there is a need to do this with the internet in the way the "Internet Dream" describes it.