If one takes a few steps back to see how society has changed over 50 years, there is a trend towards a certain way of thinking.
One way is to ask: is what the party did inherently wrong?
Another way is to ask: does what the party did do damage to my favorite tribe/team/party/group.
If using the first way, if there were lots of law suits against Apple - and each law suit showed up Apple's hidden behavior as being wrong - then the person who processes information like this would conclude that Apple is a rich but bad Apple.
Whereas, if using the other way of thinking, the fact that Apple being dragged into lawsuits is, in itself, is a bad trend because it hurts one's favorite brand of phone, tablet or computer.
I suspect that tribalism - as the prime criteria of how we go about forming our opinions - is becoming the norm in society these days.
I'm not sure if this was the way 50 years ago. And I make that statement as someone who can remember back that far.
I think that you are right and inherently now people are more likely to ask those 2 questions. I believe the reason for this is that society as a whole grew a collective conscience in the last 50 years.
In the last 50 years women/minority ethnic groups got their right to vote and sit where they want to on the bus, work in the same offices, earn a similar wage (not quite equal yet but quite close to)
50 years ago women had to have back alley abortions and were forced to give up their kids to adoption out of the shame their parents told them they should feel. Beating kids in school for misdimeanours became unacceptable also.
In the last 50 years the world also woke to climate change the huge effect its having.
As you are a person over 50, do you see how asking both these questions was essential and required in order to achieve all these great results? Or do you think these questions were not asked?
I think it may sometimes lead society down a path where it can arrive at the wrong answer. But nevertheless it's every individuals right to ask these questions and it's a companies duty to be robust and honest in its policies and actions in order to stand up to the required level of scrutiny.
Its society's duty to continue to answer and ask these same 2 questions in order to level the playing field for everyone. We need to be asking these same questions of every for-profit organisation, and possibly then one day ask it of the not for profit ones too.
What I'm trying to say in essence is that a lot of the big societal issues that existed 50 years ago were only changed or adjusted because people began to seriously ask themselves these questions. If we all acknowledge that these were huge issues 50 years ago, then how can you now seek to undermine this same thought process? What we cannot do, for the love of humanity, is hamper or deny anyone the right to ask themselves these 2 questions.
www.heise.de
