Comment by MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz on These are the privacy permissions that you grant for Meta's new twitter competitor

Doing good does not absolve you of having done evil.

Zuck has utterly failed in preventing facebook from doing clear, preventable, harm.

I don’t get to walk free, no matter how many homeless people I feed, if I kill one.

The same should go for corporations. If they do evil, once, they should done. Not fined. There is no math which makes the bad that facebook does, necessary to achieve the good it does.

The same should go for corporations. If they do evil, once, they should done.

You kinda just gutted 99% of corporations. And done overall nothing for society because they already all reopened under different names.

Why are you assuming the legal framework for ending corporations couldn’t have mechanisms to prevent that?

For example, offending corporations could be broken up, and have their assets sold to their competitors. The resulting money used as severance for the employees, who didn’t necessarily do anything wrong.

A company can’t just “start back up” if you take all their capital. And no-one would re-invest in people known for taking legal risks that might make that investment go “poof”.

And 99% of corporations wouldn’t be evil if it wasn’t fucking legal, and basically required to compete!

I don’t think it’s even legal to give away a company’s assets without their consent, be they criminal or not.

And anyway, that’s easy to get around that too. Full of companies that already “”“go bankrupt”“” to avoid paying their due and then reopen with money magically appearing from “somewhere”. In the end to me it just seems the more rules/laws you add, the more the average person will suffer because of it while not really causing any for assholes.

“This thing would be illegal” is a pretty shit argument when changing the law is on the table.

And I see you’re a fan “anti-regulation” ideals. Did it occur to you that this system could entirely replace a shitload of micro-managing bs current regulation? And did you miss the part where re-investment in criminals wouldn’t be a thing it was that expensive? The only reason it happens right now is because it technically legal, and cheap.

It’s not just changing the law of a country though, I’m pretty sure some degree of private property is in the Human Rights and would require changing international law. Not to mention it would open a whole another can of worms.

And by the way, I wasn’t talking about re-investment, more like those CEOs funneling all of their money into some backwards fund or hiding it with fake IDs, You can’t accurately seize assets if those “assets” can be hidden or saved somewhere else. They just pass off as bankrupt, lose their debt and get buck in business with the same money they had before.

Are you seriously trying to argue that corporations should be allowed to get away with harming humans, because human rights? We’re not discussing the current system, were discussing what would be the most fair. Is this really the take you want to go with?

Some places execute criminal people, why should criminal organisations be any different? With those, there doesn’t even have to be any actual killing involved. But you think its untenable ecause it would harm the people who own it, and benefitted from the crime?

The only reason hiding personal wealth in that way is because government let it happen, mostly because the people making the laws, do it too.

That should obviously stop.

That’s why limited liability is bullshit. You make the decisions, you go to prison for the crimes that come of them.

It’s kind of a gray area though. Do you just jail the CEO if a company does evil? What if it was someone else inside the company and the CEO didn’t know? And conversely, what if the CEO knew and is trying to pass off like they didn’t, how do you prove it? It turns into slippery slopes pretty fast.

My personal solution would be just to actually scale up the fines. If someone gets fined for something they profited from, it’s extremely stupid for the fine to be less than their profit. You’re basically telling them to do it again.

I mean, aren’t CEOs massive pay justified because they supposedly take on ultimate responsibility for the company?

If a company does something criminal under their watch, then even if they didn’t give the orders they have been criminally negligent - surely?

Now, mind, I don’t think that they should necessarily be the person punished most - the person’s down the chain more responsible should serve more time. But the person at the top shouldn’t get away free.

Regardless though I agree - fines with teeth are the most important thing.

I mean, aren’t CEOs massive pay justified because they supposedly take on ultimate responsibility for the company?

If a company does something criminal under their watch, then even if they didn’t give the orders they have been criminally negligent - surely?

Regardless though I agree - fines with teeth are the most important thing.

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

These are the privacy permissions that you grant for Meta's new twitter competitor(yiffit.net)

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Our Rules

Approved Bots

Community stats

Community moderators