Misdirection is normal business practice. For example, Quadpay/Zipco recently made a change where instead of appraising your credit independently for each of their plans, they calculate a total amount you're allowed to have in flight at any given time, and share that across everything. In their FAQ, there is an entry for "Is my purchasing power going down?" and the answer is some bullshit like "Your purchasing power is unified for a simpler and more streamlined experience bla bla" which doesn't actually answer the question. It's meant to defuse questioners without actually revealing that yes, total purchasing power did go down when they decreased the number of buckets that multiplied their appraisal. You're no longer allowed to pay a larger sum of money over a longer period of time - you get one amount that you're allowed over any term, and that amount of lower than what you could've been approved for before. Regardless of whether that's a good or bad decision (good for people with bad impulse control, for example), they are dishonest about it through lawyerspeak, which is the most standard business practice there is. You could argue that plenty of standard business practices are bad faith but I would say the capitalist idea of private corporations in the first place is bad faith.
Related: I wish there was a TV show where they would ask simple yes/no questions to politicians and business leaders, but their mic would only be unmuted after they press a "yes" or "no" button.
Answering a yes/no question with a "we're doing everything we can to ensure a smooth experience for our customers" is spindoctoring 101.
But that's not how people generally hold their opinions or even should (I'd argue). You can ask me "Yes or no, should we kill people?" and I can't really give you hard "yes" or "no", there is nuance and context to consider, and probably most beliefs I hold, have some sort of nuance.
Unless you're also asking politicians to all become 100% dogmatic, I don't think that's a realistic suggestion.
Covering something up is not bad faith. PR firms do it all the time (though plenty more do things in bad faith too). If what you're covering up is an explicitly user-hostile decision then maybe that's bad faith if what you're trying to do is trick people. But if you're just lying for brownie points then that's not always bad faith, just dumb.
I don't agree with your definition here. Good faith means trying to be correct but potentially not being by accident. Intentionally lying is bad faith and by definition trying to trick people; you know the truth is one thing, but you're saying something else to try to get them to believe it.
What I'm saying is that even lying is only bad faith depending on the intent of the lie. That doesn't mean others can't be upset regardless of the lie's intent, but I wouldn't say all lies are bad faith.
I'm saying this: I don't think a lie can be in good faith by definition. Trying to make someone believe something you know isn't the truth is fundamentally bad faith.
I thought you said Intentionally lying and bad faith is by definition trying to trick people. But you said Intentionally lying is bad faith and by definition trying to trick people.
I thought your point was intent. Most people would not say to hide Jews from Nazis was bad faith I think.
> Most people would not say to hide Jews from Nazis was bad faith I think.
That would be perfectly bad faith to the Nazis. There's no such factor as moral good or bad here; bad faith has more to do the intent you have towards each party. If the intent is to explicitly trick someone towards something you want or away from something you don't want, that is usually in bad faith. (There are some exceptions.) If the intent is just to explain something in a way others will understand, even if your explanation turns out to be (knowingly) inaccurate, that can sometimes be in good faith, though I wouldn't call it good practice.
Yeah, I'm pretty confused about what point they're trying to make. Given that a lie is intentionally saying something untrue, there are three possibilities:
1. A is lying to B, and they know that B doesn't know the truth. The intent is to make them believe the lie, which is intentionally misleading them and bad faith
2. A is lying to B, and they aren't sure if B knows it's a lie. The intent is to make them believe the lie, which is intentionally misleading them and bad faith
3. A is lying to B, and they know for sure B knows it's a lie. The intent is either to provoke an emotional reaction from either B or someone observing (which is bad faith), or performative for others who will see the lie and might fall into categories 1 or 2, which is bad faith
I don't understand how anyone could plausibly argue that lying to someone intentionally isn't bad faith. Maybe I'm the one falling for category three here
It mostly has to do with the potential effect of believing the lie and your reasons for telling it. If you know that believing the lie results in your advantage and/or someone else's disadvantage, then it's probably bad faith. If you don't know that however, and the intent is not necessarily to mislead, that's not always bad faith. You could argue that the very act of claiming a falsehood to someone is knowingly deceptive and therefore bad faith by definition, but I don't agree that's unconditional.
For example, if I lie to protect both myself and all other parties involved, that sometimes can be in good faith! It can be bad faith if I know that it hurts them and also know a less hurtful alternative, but if I really believe the less immediately hurtful alternative will lead to a worse overall outcome then I can still be acting in good faith. It's really a lot more nuanced than "deception bad". I have to deceive myself all the time to achieve good outcomes! now I wouldn't say my treatment of myself is good faith but I try sometimes.
