All entities make decisions for their own benefit 100% of the time. Where you come out ahead is when their interests coincide with yours.
That works out rather poorly against large governments, because businesses can lose customers by misbehaving, but a government with 55% of the vote doesn't need any more than that and can then do anything they want to the remaining 45% of the people. Especially if they can convince their own supporters that the victims are the villains -- then they can set you on fire and still get re-elected.
Don't assume you know what "for their own benefit" means. It doesn't mean not doing things that benefit society, it means not willingly hitting yourself in the face with a hammer.
People do things to help other people because it builds goodwill and reputation, and because they're a large enough entity that doing something that costs them $5 and makes everyone including them $6 each will still result in a $1 profit, and because of Hofstadter's theory of super-rationality, and because they care what happens to their kids, and a hundred other reasons.
Nobody but an idiot does things that are purely destructive to themselves and everyone around them.
"For their own benefit" means literally what the words say -- something that benefits them. Your wrong assumption is that socially beneficial acts can't benefit individuals. That's something we can argue about, but you don't have to be a self-righteous jerk about everything. That doesn't benefit anybody.
> "For their own benefit" means literally what the words say -- something that benefits them.
You have to admit that "it means not willingly hitting yourself in the face with a hammer." and "Nobody but an idiot does things that are purely destructive to themselves and everyone around them." is not the clearest way of expressing that. "Not actively harming everyone" is not the same as "doing things for your own benefit".
> Your wrong assumption is that socially beneficial acts can't benefit individuals.
That would be a wrong assumption indeed, considering society consists of individuals.
(I'm tempted to write more, but I've already spent more than enough time telling people they're wrong on the internet today)
> That's something we can argue about
Even if we actually disagreed on that point: It looks like there's something about us that means that no, we can't argue.
> but you don't have to be a self-righteous jerk about everything.
That is true. But when I perceive someone as arguing in bad faith, then it's hard to resist – even if they aren't and we're just misunderstanding each other.
When you wrote that you believe that Google does not violate the GDPR, to me it was like arguing that the moon does not exist because it would rip apart the earth. That might be an interesting intellectual exercise but I don't have to analyze your theory to know that it's wrong. The GDPR plainly says that you cannot force your users to consent. Google does. Easy to verify from Europe. Case closed.
I hope that explains why I refused to debate that topic.
I think the issue is with power, not intentions. Microsoft may make selfish decisions 100% of the time, but there's only so much impact they can have. The government has monopoly on violence, implemented through army and law enforcement, and can also make your life painful (or end it) in countless less direct ways - like monetary policies, healthcare policies, welfare policies, etc.
Ultimately, what the government can do is only limited by the country's constitution. Not doing beneficial things doesn't reduce its ability to bad things.
> Microsoft makes decisions for its own benefit 100% of the time.
The nature of decisions is completely different. Microsoft cannot put you in jail, confiscate your property etc. Also, microsoft has outlived a ton of governments who lost the trust of the public.
That’s what I meant to say, but I should certainly have voiced what I meant better.