this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
840 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
62834 readers
5652 users here now
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 other!
- 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
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem is if we give major companies a way out, on the off chance that it might have a benefit for the little guy... those major companies end up stepping on the little guy anyway.
So why let them shield themselves from the consequences of their action?
There’s no need to give a company a “way out”. The government can be as harsh as it wants to be within the limits of the law. But as soon as you start targeting the owner when he is supposed to be financially protected by the law, there are worse consequences in the long term. No matter how much they personally fine Elon, he has infinite money, this doesn’t really hurt him and I doubt he cares since he seems more focused in helping Trump win than helping X (or himself) succeed.
Gotta ask, what would you propose that would curb Elon from willfully committing crimes as he is?
He continues to do so because he's proven the system is broken as soon as someone is sufficiently wealthy. He fights the charges, then when that runs out he fights the amounts, and even when he does get his comeuppance to the tune of 44 billion, he's an even bigger brat cause he finally got stood up to. Do you think that there's a way to systematically even the playing field?
I’m not a lawmaker so I don’t know. And it hasn’t been dealt with by those who are because it’s not an easy decision. But the solution can’t possibly be allowing governments to damage the owner’s personal finances for choices at the company level. Truth is you can’t open this road for Elon Musk and never use it again, because that’s never how it goes down. If this is allowed to happen, more people will be unwilling to open businesses because the only protection that they’re supposed to have can be completely ignored by the government. Governments are as predatory as mega corporations, and neither can be given too much power. This takes away power from the companies and gives it to the government, not the average citizen.
I don’t know, and nobody else knows.
To clarify the cost of creating an LLC is a hundred bucks more or less depending on the jurisdiction. So Elon should be allowed to create "Musk Corp Oct2024 LLC" and then say or do anything under the guise of Musk Corp Oct2024 LLC, then if he's sued or fined just declare bankruptcy and create "Musk Corp Nov2024 LLC" and do whatever he wants?
At some point you have to recognize the individual is at fault. You can't just hide behind "Oh that wasn't me, that was the company" or " That was Musk of SpaceX having an opinion of Musk of Tesla, they are different entities."
If someone is attempting to be genuine and truthful when it comes to personal statements, fine, we can consider the protections. But if someone is flagrant and malicious then those protections no longer apply.
Sure, and you catch them on something else, like fraud. But if it's purely a financial failure, you bankrupt the corp and move on, because that's how the law is structured.
If we want different results, we need different legal structures. In this case, we shouldn't be granting liability protections in the first place if the person opening it has a history of bankruptcies or whatever. But once the liability protections are granted, they must be upheld or revoked, and if revoked, all prior actions should still be covered.
That's how the law should work, and we can't just waive away legal contracts because they're inconvenient, because that violates the rule of law.
Assuming I accept your premise, the premise of the article is that the actions are not being done by the company.
The key point is that Musk is at fault, not his company.
You can't just hide behind "the company" and do whatever you want.
At some point, as the EU is discussing, the individual is at fault.
It really depends on if Musk is acting as an officer of the company or on his own. If it's on his own, he's liable in the same way that any individual is liable, and only personal assets would be considered. If he's acting as an officer, then the company he's representing is liable.
At no point would other companies he runs be liable, unless he's also acting as an officer of those other orgs at the time. So they should never consider revenue from other firms, but merely revenue from his personal holdings.
That said, this is coming from a US perspective, I'm not familiar with EU law.
Yes that’s how it should be. But who determines if the person is doing it on purpose or if it’s a genuine mistake? There shouldn’t be ambiguity in the law, which is why you always either end up hurting corporations, or hurting citizens. Can’t please both with objective law.
How about a governing body with systems of checks and balances? You're pretending that laws are just out there enforcing themselves. The EU isn't just some dude with a vendetta. It's a large collection of people making decisions.
And in fact as a business, in order to do business in the EU, you've agreed that the EU has the ability to make decisions like this.
The system proven to show how corrupt it is every time it’s given a chance? Again, it’s cool when they’re doing to to someone else (specially Elon Musk who has too much power), until it’s you they’re coming for.
Actions you don't like aren't corrupt.
Actions Elon doesn't like aren't corrupt.
In fact arguably Elon is the corrupt individual in this case and the EU is simply applying the law to the corrupt individual.
Can you point to where I said or implied the opposite?
I never said Elon was in the right. I have stated that his company must be punished for the decisions it made, not the owner as per the protections guaranteed by the law to company owners.
You mean the law that violates your rights as the head of a corporation, which is supposed to protect your assets from those of the company? Cool.
So a company provides infinite protection?
"I didn't murder that man, the company did."
"The company paid individual X to murder them, not me."
No, that's ridiculous.
There is a line you can cross. Musk has crossed that line. Is it exactly written, if your name is Elon Musk and you own companies X, Y, & Z, and you perform actions A, B, C, you I'll be fined in this exact way? No. There is a grey area, and a group within the EU is allowed to make a more specific determination.
And do you know who agreed to these rules? Elon Musk. He chose to do business in the EU. He agreed to their rules.
No. Never even suggested that.
Ridiculous stretch. I have stated multiple times, as has the law, the company provides financial protections, did I ever say anything else? Of course if you are involved in the murder of somebody you should be prosecuted. If you can’t argue in good faith don’t bother responding.
No. You can clearly state in the law that “if your company is found to violate a consumer protection law, your other assets will be in jeopardy if we can’t figure out a way to fine your company”. I wonder what would be the consequences of explicitly informing companies of the consequences of their actions.
Yes he did. He agreed to the rule that states the company will be fined up to 6% of the yearly income, not whatever this is.
I don't think I quite agree about governments being predatory by nature. I think they can be, have been in the past, and safeguards and checks and balances need to be there to prevent it. But generally a democratically elected government is beneficial, albeit flawed. Often reactive rather than proactive, but not commonly bloodthirsty. I mean, they often can't even jail executives for criminal decisions or negligence.
In Elon's case, I do believe governments around the world are going to have to adapt to protect their citizens from popular, but provably false and dangerous propaganda, as well as protect their privacy in the EU's case.
Also, I agree, we both aren't lawmakers. So for now I will just have to cheer any attempt at adaptation, and hope that their solution is functional and passes scrutiny.
Well, if you look at the history you might change your mind. If you look at the Top 10 Most Politically Influential Countries, by US News, you will notice that out of the 10, at least half cannot be considered "beneficial".
I hope we can agree that Russia (1) and China (3) are predatory. But in case you don't believe so:
We have the UAE (9) and Saudi Arabia (7), who will literally kill you for the crime of being a journalist [SA], being gay [SA], and arrest you for speaking against them [UAE]
Israel (5): I guess it depends on where you stand with the current Israel-Hamas situation. But I wouldn't say Israel has an utopian government.
Iran (10): From numerous results from a quick Google search, I can point to Pakhshan Azizi being sentenced to death for her humanitarian work.
That's 6/10 of the most influential governments being provably predatory against their own citizens.
That's one of the unfortunate advantages of creating companies, but I believe such protections are needed for the average citizen who wants to start their own business. Maybe you disagree.
If you must "protect" your citizens at all cost from misinformation being spread on X, then you can do what Brazil did, and just force all ISPs to block traffic to it, then fine thousands of dollars to those who get caught using a VPN to access it. This is also extremely predatory (against X and Brazil citizens), but nobody cared for some reason.
Hopefully it can be solved in a way that doesn't harm small businesses.