this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
2658 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

60073 readers
3459 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (3 children)

They really weren't that effective with Microsoft then either. The antitrust was far too late for Netscape and allowed Microsoft to hold a dominate market share with IE until they allowed the browser to deprecate and Google came in with a much better browser and took over the browser market (and are now doing the same bullshit).

As long as we keep giving these companies meaningless fines or wait until the damage is irreversible companies are going to always push the limit and look at any repercussions as just a cost of doing business.

So yeah, not much faith in anything changing.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That is why I am in favour of the financial death penalty. Fines should be 10x the damage done. If a company cannot pay it, they are required to become a non profit.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Fines should be 10x the damage done

What are your monetary damages for this?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think a better solution is one year of global revenue (not profit) as it’s really hard to determine damages in cases like this. That way, it’s legitimately a death sentence regardless of the size or scale of the company. If you set the fines at an amount not linked to profit or revenue, all you’re doing is making it extremely hard for the little guy but less hard for the big corporations - the ones you really want to go after.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I like it, much more practical.

[–] Carighan 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah stuff like this really needs to be percentual and fined to the CEOs and the board, not the company as an entity.

Oh, Microsoft valued at 200 bil for shareholders? Well sorry C's and boardies, you gotta scrunge up 2 bil each now, personally. Those are fines they'd at least notice.

(edit)
Come to think of it, the fined-personally-to-the-decisionmaker might really be the big thing here on its own. The company did this shit under you, CEO. It was your corporate policy and hiring practices that allowed this to happen, even if you did not press the button. You pay up. You take the blame, not the people under you just following orders.

[–] uid0gid0 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This just ignores the reason that corporations exist in the first place, to shield people from personal liability. There is a mechanism by which you can go after that called "piercing the corporate veil" but it is an extremely high bar to hit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

the reason that corporations exist in the first place, to shield people from personal liability

Which is the problem. As parent rightly pointed out, lack of personal liability is exactly why corporations pull this kind of bullshit. The solution is to lower the bar for holding individuals, particularly executives, personally responsible for the actions of the organizations they control.