- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.zip
You must log in or register to comment.
How about making them such a high percentage that it would genuinely impact their bottom line and not a measly amount calculated as “cost of doing business”
4% of gross revenue is not a negligible amount. For no company.
Probably, but it would depend on how much gross revenue they make on said practice, and how often they get a fine.
Haters gonna hate
Less considering more doing
Do it. The crimes are almost entirely by him personally, and had unprecedented damage. He should be responsible with all his money - a Twitter-sized blow would be a slap on the wrist as the platform is worth just $5B or thereabouts.
It’s finally time to hold the people hiding behind the companies accountable!!
woohoo!
As much as I hate musk, I don’t think this is correct, or even legal…?
While I have no idea about legality, it is quite obvious that X/Twitter is not really run as a company run as a public communications platform, but rather as a fever dream of Musk.
Especially the Eli Lily Co. disaster should’ve been a wake up call for X of how much harm the fake checkmarks can bring, yet nothing was done. Most likely because Elon Musk didn’t care. He basically runs it like it’s how little service that he fully owns and controls with full disregard to anything but his own vision.
Therefore including his other businesses makes sense, as the fine that is only based on X’s income would probably be negligible in his opinion, as he runs it on a loss anyways. Only bigger fines would actually have any effect in my opinion.
That very much reads like “the ends justifies the means” logic. If a fine isn’t likely to change behavior, they should just block the platform.
Wven better, do like brazil; block and fine
he’s the one whose blurred the lines between the businesses.
taking funds from one to pay for the other regularly.
I’d say the EU has every right to do it this way.
Corporations do this regularly. Using funds from one branch of their business to prop up others. That’s neither new or illegal in the EU.
He’s free to leave the EU at anytime. They are allowed to create appropriate punishments to deter further misuse. They are saying here that they need to be able to punish more to deter him, as he’s an asshole who says fuck you to everyone.
legality i don’t know, but guess who has an infinite supply of lawyers? Musk was able to secure loans for his Twitter misadventure based on all his other shit. Everything he does is entangled with his other stuff. The Hyperloop? lies.
Who cares about legal if it hurts republicans?
break his ability to finance the orange felon
That would be extra funny, considering at least some motivation behind his initially bidding on Twitter, was to cash out his absurdly overvalued Tesla stock, without causing it to crash.
Clearly he signed that initial Delaware contract while he was still riding high on mania, but still, his desire to convert his overpriced Tesla stock played no small part. The remaining rationale was mostly drug-induced psychosis, but I digress.
So, calculating fines based on his overpriced assets, forcing him to sell off a bunch of those shitty assets, and risking their price falling closer to their true worth, would be hilarious.
It’s also why I am skeptical that they’ll do it, or at least I’m skeptical they’ll do it in a way that would trigger a domino effect, or market contagion.
fine the fucker for 20% of his net “worth”, that should give him some pause
Not really billions is beyond being halved
Hi I’m a mathematician.
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
I think I read it like you did first, that fining him billions would be more than half of his net worth, which is wrong.
But I think they mean that if you have billions, taking away half wouldnt change your life. I’d also say thats wrong for musk though because his money is tied up in companies. If he had to pay a cash fine of a huge amount, that likely would cause discomfort.
I think they’re just saying that if you’re a multi billionaire and get a 50% net worth fine, you’re still a billionaire once it’s done.
I’m a mathematician too. They’re probably speaking from an intuitive grasp of utility.
While I disagree that “billions is beyond being halved”, there is some truth to the idea that numbers can get so big that halving doesn’t make much difference. That seems very very counter-intuitive, so I’ll try to briefly explain.
Consider (10^10 + 2). That’s 10000000000+2. I think it’s fair to say that the +2 doesn’t make a lot of difference. It’s still approximately 10^10.
So then, consider 10^(10^10)×100. That’s a huge number, too big to type here, then multiplied by 100. So the result is 100 times bigger than the huge number. But… writing it down we see this:
10^(10^10)×100 = 10^(10^10+2) ≈ 10^(10^10).
So although ×100 does make it one hundred times bigger… that just doesn’t really make a lot of difference to a number as big as that one. As numbers get bigger and bigger, they start to take on properties a bit like ‘infinity’. Addition stops being important, then multiplication, then for even bigger numbers exponentiation doesn’t huge much of an impact either.
Mathematically, I think this is really cool and interesting. But I don’t think 1 billion is that big. 10^9 is big enough that +2 doesn’t matter much, but not so big that ×2 doesn’t matter.
[edit] (I’m struggling to get the nested powers to look right… So hopefully my meaning is clear enough anyway.)
A single billion, when put in terms of money, is enough that - simply invested in GICs and bonds, earning a very, very conservative 1% interest - it would earn you ten million dollars a year in interest alone.
I would challenge you to even come up with a reasonable way to spend ten million dollars a year. By my back of the napkin math you could vacation every single day, living in hotels and eating at fancy restaurants, and still not make a dent in that.
Musk has an estimated net worth of $247 billion. You could fine him 99% of his current wealth, and he would still struggle to spend enough that he wouldn’t end up increasing his remaining wealth every year.
And this is why it is ludicrous to believe that ultra-rich people earn their fortune with hard work or good ideas. Being rich generates its own money. Being poor is expensive. There should be no billionaires, for any reason. Such concentrated wealth is very bad.
I would challenge you to even come up with a reasonable way to spend ten million dollars a year.
I would fund multiple forms of art media and have them released for free every year while living on ramen in my leaky apartment
Hello to any billionaires looking for a worthy heir
Now imagine a world where, instead of there being billionaires, everyone had their basic needs met, so artists could afford to focus on creating their art instead of relying on handouts from a capricious god.
But I want to be a capricious god
Maybe posting a picture where you write it out? I think I understand though.
Interesting concept, thank you!
Have you ever played idle champions of the forgotten realms? At some point you start to get this feeling.
Happens in MMOs too, world of Warcraft was bad with it over the years on and off.
They’ve reduced the numbers down multiple times so that people start to feel progression again.
I’m not too familiar with WoW, but I think it’s a bit different.
In the idle clicker, you quickly get to exponential numbers, so when you’re optimizing the party and you have a choice of say, something that doubles your base damage or something, it really feels irrelevant because after all the other multipliers your hero is already dealing 2x10^(102), and going to 4x10^(102) is nothing
division has no power here old man!
They’re not talking about Maths. They’re talking about wealth.
WOW. That’s interesting. Kinda brilliant if it works. Wouldn’t work in the US, unfortunately.
It’s the same thing Brazil did.
He’s rich enough that he’s kind of a parent corporation by himself, so:
X was previously accused of violating the Digital Services Act (DSA), which could result in fines of up to 6 percent of total worldwide annual turnover. That fine would be levied on the “provider” of X, which could be defined to include other Musk-led firms.
But yeah, American law has been limited so the buck stops at the company which declares bankruptcy and the money starts a new company.
Not everyone else system is as shitty
so important to realize this. laws are just what this group of people said. another group of people say they’re this. in the end, what they do is all that matters. it’s almost like you could just skip them, grab him by the collar, and shake him down to the tune of ‘whatever it takes to make you sit down, shut up, and stop your BS’.
I mean he is leveraging his Tesla stock
For twitter, he actually isn’t. That was the original plan, but he moved away from it and got additional external financing, and then put up more cash himself by selling additional Tesla stock.
Not sure about boring company / neuralink.
Is the EU just going to bet that none of its companies ever have to do business outside of the EU?
Eh?
Because retaliation on behalf of domestic businesses is something Europe freaking invented.
Why would they think that?
It’s easy to support when Elon is the recipient, but is this a good precedent to set?
Yes. Next question.
Absolutely and without question yes
Unironically, yes. You shouldn’t be able to shield your actions under a different corporate umbrella.
“Oh, guess we can’t fine them much because Twitter is a money pit, so they’ll get to continue breaking the law for cheap”
Nah, make the fine off of his entire net worth, make him cash in some of that stock so he can finally pay taxes and fines. Make it hurt enough for him to consider not breaking the laws of countries he wants to do business in.
Sounds good in principle, but isn’t the one of the main purposes of creating an LLC or Corporation to shield your personal assets from the company’s finances? Everyone cheers for these policies until you’re the one they’re coming for. I hope you’re as cheerful when the government wipes your personal bank account as consequence of your company’s affairs.
LLCs shouldn’t exist in the first place.
A companys owner should always be liable for the laws its company breaks.
I strongly disagree. That said, I think liability protection should reduce the larger your organization gets. A mom-and-pop restaurant shouldn’t have their house get taken if their restaurant gets e-coli, but a CEO should go to jail for cutting safety spending to improve quarterly profits.
That said, if you have a legal agreement that certain assets are protected, you can’t just waive it away because you don’t like the trick they pulled. If the policy isn’t meeting the original goals, the policy should be changed, and anyone who got away with a loophole should be protected by that legal mistake, otherwise we have a system of feels instead of laws.
I guess that’s your opinion.
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?
Gotta ask, what would you propose that would curb Elon from willfully committing crimes as he is?
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.
Do you think that there’s a way to systematically even the playing field?
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.
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.
isn’t the one of the main purposes of creating an LLC or Corporation to shield your personal assets from the company’s finances?
It is but it is not written in stone for all eternity. If people are abusing this law, like Musk, then it gets amended or rewritten.
I agree. They can try to change the laws, and if the majority of those with voting powers agree on a way to handle these cases while doing more good than harm, I’m sure few would complain.
But it can’t be retroactive. If you change the nature of legal protection, that should only impact actions going forward. Ex post facto laws are illegal in the US, as they should be in any country where the rule of law is to be taken seriously.
Give it up. Lemmy thinks “corporation” means “megacorp”, has no clue about financial dealings outside what they read in the headlines and can’t spell “LLC”.
“Capitalism BAD!”, is what you should be posting.
Allowing limited liability companies to exist without requiring them to be covered by liability insurance is institutionalised market failure.
Shipping companies setup separate LLC’s for their ships so of they have an accident the ship goes bankrupt and they keep their profits shielded… that kind of stuff is bullshit
They also lose any claim to the cargo as well if they bankrupt the ship. It’s the same idea as buying an umbrella insurance policy, if you suffer a major loss, you lose the asset, but you don’t lose anything else.
But I agree, we should probably have tighter standards on what qualifies for liability protection, as well as a record of past abuse of liability protection to prevent future abuse (i.e. your LLC application would be denied if you’ve bankrupted too many prior companies). So we should be stopping this at the source, not retroactively removing the liability protections because the government made a stupid contract.
Yes. Like every system, there are those who abuse it. But you must be careful so that while trying to punish those abusers, you don’t end up creating avenues to also punish those who don’t abuse the system, but simply make a mistake. This sets a precedent so that the government can target the assets of the owner of the company if they’re not satisfied the company punishment, which doesn’t sound as cool when the company in question is your family’s bakery or your neighbor’s paralegal office.
<…> your family’s bakery or your neighbor’s paralegal office.
Are not subject to DSA. For the most part DSA only covers companies which have more than 45 million users in the European Union.
Whether it’s subject to DSA or not is irrelevant. The fact is that a company has to pay a fine to the government, whatever the infraction might be, and the government is trying to force something else, not the company in question, to pay the fine.
It can’t be irrelevant as it’s the primary factor in deciding if the fine will even be brought. But ignoring that, there are clear limits. This would only apply to cases where corporate assets were used as personal ones. Hence, the limitation to private companies that have sole owners.
And you talk like this is some novel never heard of approach. Personal liability applies to many actions under the law, just corporations managed to lobby it down for themselves. And your scaremongering of small family business becoming some governments targets are unfounded.
It can’t be irrelevant as it’s the primary factor in deciding if the fine will even be brought.
Is DSA the only way for your company to get fined? If the answer is no, then yes, it’s irrelevant. Because while your company may not be eligible for a DSA fine, there are countless different situations which could leave you in the same spot.
Personal liability applies to many actions under the law
Yes, but none of those actions involve what is happening here. The DSA clearly states that the company may be fined up to 6% of its yearly revenue.
your scaremongering of small family business becoming some governments targets are unfounded.
What scaremongering? This is a valid concern. If Elon Musk’s rights as a company owner can be violated, who says yours can’t?
I love how you quoted all the parts expect the one that mentions where for this to even apply the person have to misuse corporate assets in the first place. Follow the law, and you are good in the EU, no matter which size business you are.
If Elon Musk’s rights as a company owner can be violated, who says yours can’t?
Here you go again. If they decide to go through with it, no Musk rights will be violated, there is extensive legal precedent in the EU that covers this.
I don’t know if this will be a big issue for small businesses. But in any case where there is construction of multiple companies in a structure to separate profits and losses for fuckery with taxes and fines, I think I would also be OK with that whole structure being seen as one entity and treated as such.
The billionaire class however is uniquely adept at this kind of fuckery and wield an ungodly level of power, only surpassed by governments. And I think governments need to be careful that these assholes don’t get too much power… so it’s high time they take them down a peg… or 10.
It will be an issue because your average citizen won’t be so willing to start a new business if they know the government can come after their personal funds as a consequence of something that was done at the company level.
Who said personal funds. Are you arguing slippery slope or moving the goal posts?
You are going for the assets of the owner, which are unrelated to the company in question. Effectively devaluating companies that are not the infringing one, which directly affect the person’s net worth. This is no different than the government straight up taking money from your investments or 401K.
Shit take. Get judged by peers
Everyone thanks you for your helpful insight into this topic.
You can subscribe to
Why not? Which person owning multiple companies would be disadvantaged in a way that could be considered unfair in this way?
deleted by creator
