I don't understand the purpose of your post. I didn't come close to claiming otherwise. I'm not claiming otherwise.

I provided examples of companies doing bad stuff in the pursuit of money. I opined that a change in the law is needed. The fact that companies doing bad stuff does not equal companies being legally required to bad stuff supports my position. That is, even though there is no law requiring companies to do bad stuff they still sometimes do. I suggested that a change in the law might lead to companies doing bad stuff less frequently.

Again, I don't understand the purpose of your post. Can you clarify?

You responded to a post arguing against the notion that companies are legally required to do things that are wrong for profit. You responded with an argument that many companies had done things wrong for profit, but without proving that they are legally required to do so. So your response was basically irrelevant, and the GP is pointing that out.

As a technical matter, there are a number of ways that laws already require companies to consider the broad interests of society. Environmental regulations, taxes, tort law, and various other similar regulations, not to mention the natural pressure that the best interest of society tends to be somewhat compatible with profit, all influence companies to choose the option that is best for society as a whole most of the time. I wonder what specific law you are proposing when you say that laws should be changed to make companies consider the "societal interest."

No one is claiming that the law that corporation are required to try to maximize shareholder value is the same thing as requiring companies to do bad things. Some people, me included, are saying that there are unintended consequences with this law and that some companies do bad things in an effort to maximize profit (increase shareholder value).

Pointing out that companies doing bad things is not the same thing as legally requiring them to do bad things is a red herring. It's not germane to the discussion at hand.

On the contrary, the claim in the original post is exactly that Google must do bad things because of some unnamed law that corporations must maximize shareholder value. Specifically:

"So, of course Google and Facebook have to erode the concept of online privacy [i.e. do bad things]. That is their product and that is the value that they are legally bound to maximize [i.e. the reason they must do bad things is because they are legally required to]."

That is what I was responding to when you responded to me. Since you are so mistaken about what exactly the discussion at hand is, I don't know how you can claim to know what is germane to it.

If your intention was not to answer the question you quoted, it would have been best not to quote it, because it looks like you are trying to answer it.

No one is claiming that the law that corporation are required to try to maximize shareholder value is the same thing as requiring companies to do bad things. Some people, me included, are saying that there are unintended consequences with this law and that some companies do bad things in an effort to maximize profit (increase shareholder value).

Pointing out that companies doing bad things is not the same thing as legally requiring them to do bad things is a red herring. It's not germane to the discussion at hand.