Strongly disagree. Just as a company is entitled to provide whatever they wish, consumers are entitled to form views of the company based on their actions.
consumers are entitled to form views of the company based on their actions.
And arguably not just entitled to form views, but morally obligated to do so. In a mostly unregulated industry (like classified ads), the court of public opinion is one of the more powerful checks civil society can deploy to police corporations.
Boycotts, bad press, strikes, activism, and the like can all change corporate behavior to some extent. For most people, these tools are the only way to influence corporations. Most people don't have the money to lobby Congress. "Voting with your dollars" doesn't really work with monopolies, or quasi-monopolies. And founding competing startups is a fantasy even for most entrepreneurially-minded hackers, let alone regular folk with families, mortgages, and no programming skill.
If we say these methods shouldn't ever be used, we're basically saying only laws can regulate corporate behavior. That sounds like a recipe for more and worse laws, more lobbying, and worse corporate behavior.
It seems like more of the people dissatisfied with Craigslist would be directing their ire at the CEO (Jim Buckmaster), and not Craig himself. Of the two I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that despite the "Craig" in Craiglist, it would be the CEO responsible for the decisions this company is making...
Craig of Craigslist isn't exactly the same as any old employee of any old company. I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but the fact that it's hard in this case is a side-effect of the context they've worked very hard to create. In other words, they're asking for it.
A company is just 1:N people trying to accomplish something (usually earn profit). I would usually agree that it's best to treat a company separate from the individuals there. But in the case of Craigslist it may be fair since Craig has full control of the company, and the companies latest actions are clearly done by either his command or with his consent.
Not to mention his name is on the freaking company! Hard to separate the two when that happens. If you have a problem with Craig's List, why not complain about Craig?
The company, regardless of laws that claim individual rights for corporations, is not something that can be judged independently of the people who comprise it. If you judge a company you are by definition judging it's employees, owners, shareholders, etc. If you are not considering the people, then a company itself is almost nothing.
Strongly disagree. Just as a company is entitled to provide whatever they wish, consumers are entitled to form views of the company based on their actions.