A reminder lesson from Musk buying Twitter (1 Viewer)

[Craig234]

Is how our system has "sociopathic" corporate design, as explained in the documentary "The Corporation". In other words, by law, public corporations are only allowed to consider the maximum profits for the owners (shareholders). Public interest? Public good? "Doing the right thing"? Not only does none of that have any place, but it's literally illegal, as I understand, for it to be put ahead of the profits.

The assumption seems to be, 'that's ok for corporations to only care about profits; it's up to the political system to put rules in place that keep them operating in the public interest'. Except that the corporations have used their enormous wealth to take control of the political system so that it doesn't put those limits in place, and operates by those corporate profit rules. So it's broken.

(In theory, private companies could decide to care more about 'the public good', but in practice that doesn't seem to happen much, for both competitive reasons and owners' desires. The largest in the US, Cargill, has been named "Worst Company in the World", a massive polluter; the second largest is Koch - enough said, another major polluter.)

This was shown with this Twitter purchase. There is a 'public interest' in the role of Twitter as a very important part of our political culture - not enough that it was regulated as a public entity like voting, but enough where there was a balance that its board of directors got some public pressure and took some measures like restricting some misinformation and banning egregious rulebreakers like trump.

It seems clear that the board of directors saw a threat to this public good from Musk purchasing the company; evidenced by their creating a poison pill to try to prevent his purchase. The staff of the company has expressed great concern about the purchase. But none of that matters. The board was required to do what was profitable, and sell, or be faced with being sued for not doing what was most profitable, so they had to sell.

That's a pretty broken system, in terms of 'the public good' having any power, with instead corporations having to care only about what's most profitable. Resulting in an ego-maniac being able to buy a lot of influence in our politics and there's 'nothing we can do about it' except consumer choice.

 

[ecofarm]

Laws require a company to behave morally. The market requires a company to behave ethically. The idea that companies can do whatever they want in the name of profit is childish nonsense.

 

[Crovax]

Is how our system has "sociopathic" corporate design, as explained in the documentary "The Corporation". In other words, by law, public corporations are only allowed to consider the maximum profits for the owners (shareholders). Public interest? Public good? "Doing the right thing"? Not only does none of that have any place, but it's literally illegal, as I understand, for it to be put ahead of the profits.

The assumption seems to be, 'that's ok for corporations to only care about profits; it's up to the political system to put rules in place that keep them operating in the public interest'. Except that the corporations have used their enormous wealth to take control of the political system so that it doesn't put those limits in place, and operates by those corporate profit rules. So it's broken.

(In theory, private companies could decide to care more about 'the public good', but in practice that doesn't seem to happen much, for both competitive reasons and owners' desires. The largest in the US, Cargill, has been named "Worst Company in the World", a massive polluter; the second largest is Koch - enough said, another major polluter.)

This was shown with this Twitter purchase. There is a 'public interest' in the role of Twitter as a very important part of our political culture - not enough that it was regulated as a public entity like voting, but enough where there was a balance that its board of directors got some public pressure and took some measures like restricting some misinformation and banning egregious rulebreakers like trump.

It seems clear that the board of directors saw a threat to this public good from Musk purchasing the company; evidenced by their creating a poison pill to try to prevent his purchase. The staff of the company has expressed great concern about the purchase. But none of that matters. The board was required to do what was profitable, and sell, or be faced with being sued for not doing what was most profitable, so they had to sell.

That's a pretty broken system, in terms of 'the public good' having any power, with instead corporations having to care only about what's most profitable. Resulting in an ego-maniac being able to buy a lot of influence in our politics and there's 'nothing we can do about it' except consumer choice.

I do think it's hilarious how the public perception of Twitter has changed from its a social media company that can do as it pleases to a community sure that must act in the good of society.

 

[jdog21]

Is how our system has "sociopathic" corporate design, as explained in the documentary "The Corporation". In other words, by law, public corporations are only allowed to consider the maximum profits for the owners (shareholders). Public interest? Public good? "Doing the right thing"? Not only does none of that have any place, but it's literally illegal, as I understand, for it to be put ahead of the profits.

The assumption seems to be, 'that's ok for corporations to only care about profits; it's up to the political system to put rules in place that keep them operating in the public interest'. Except that the corporations have used their enormous wealth to take control of the political system so that it doesn't put those limits in place, and operates by those corporate profit rules. So it's broken.

(In theory, private companies could decide to care more about 'the public good', but in practice that doesn't seem to happen much, for both competitive reasons and owners' desires. The largest in the US, Cargill, has been named "Worst Company in the World", a massive polluter; the second largest is Koch - enough said, another major polluter.)

This was shown with this Twitter purchase. There is a 'public interest' in the role of Twitter as a very important part of our political culture - not enough that it was regulated as a public entity like voting, but enough where there was a balance that its board of directors got some public pressure and took some measures like restricting some misinformation and banning egregious rulebreakers like trump.

It seems clear that the board of directors saw a threat to this public good from Musk purchasing the company; evidenced by their creating a poison pill to try to prevent his purchase. The staff of the company has expressed great concern about the purchase. But none of that matters. The board was required to do what was profitable, and sell, or be faced with being sued for not doing what was most profitable, so they had to sell.

That's a pretty broken system, in terms of 'the public good' having any power, with instead corporations having to care only about what's most profitable. Resulting in an ego-maniac being able to buy a lot of influence in our politics and there's 'nothing we can do about it' except consumer choice.

Doesn't Twitter get section 230 protection?
That would contradict your statement that I bolded

 

[Craig234]

Doesn't Twitter get section 230 protection?
That would contradict your statement that I bolded

Ya, it does, but that doesn't contradict my statement.

Giving it some limited liability isn't the same as the government running it, as I said "like voting".

 

[Antiwar]

Laws require a company to behave morally. The market requires a company to behave ethically.

* In theory.

 

[ecofarm]

* In theory.

No, in reality. Crazy people try stupid gaslight like, "companies can do anything they want, and they only care about profit!"

It's stupid bs and it shouldn't even fool children. That adults buy into it is pathetic. How does a full grown adult have no tether to reality. Only drugs could make someone that disconnected, right?

 

[CLAX1911]

Is how our system has "sociopathic" corporate design, as explained in the documentary "The Corporation". In other words, by law, public corporations are only allowed to consider the maximum profits for the owners (shareholders). Public interest? Public good? "Doing the right thing"? Not only does none of that have any place, but it's literally illegal, as I understand, for it to be put ahead of the profits.

The assumption seems to be, 'that's ok for corporations to only care about profits; it's up to the political system to put rules in place that keep them operating in the public interest'. Except that the corporations have used their enormous wealth to take control of the political system so that it doesn't put those limits in place, and operates by those corporate profit rules. So it's broken.

(In theory, private companies could decide to care more about 'the public good', but in practice that doesn't seem to happen much, for both competitive reasons and owners' desires. The largest in the US, Cargill, has been named "Worst Company in the World", a massive polluter; the second largest is Koch - enough said, another major polluter.)

This was shown with this Twitter purchase. There is a 'public interest' in the role of Twitter as a very important part of our political culture - not enough that it was regulated as a public entity like voting, but enough where there was a balance that its board of directors got some public pressure and took some measures like restricting some misinformation and banning egregious rulebreakers like trump.

It seems clear that the board of directors saw a threat to this public good from Musk purchasing the company; evidenced by their creating a poison pill to try to prevent his purchase. The staff of the company has expressed great concern about the purchase. But none of that matters. The board was required to do what was profitable, and sell, or be faced with being sued for not doing what was most profitable, so they had to sell.

That's a pretty broken system, in terms of 'the public good' having any power, with instead corporations having to care only about what's most profitable. Resulting in an ego-maniac being able to buy a lot of influence in our politics and there's 'nothing we can do about it' except consumer choice.

Elon musk purchasing the company is a public good.

Twitter is anti free speech,. Without Free speech you can't have a democracy so creating a space where free speech is respected is absolutely a public good the only reason you would think it wasn't is because you don't think certain people should have a voice. In which case you are an authoritarian.

 

[ecofarm]

"They just do whatever they want, man! And all they want is profit, man!"

What kind of ****ing moron bs is that. That's someone who has never owned a company or even had a real job. That's a 9/11 Truther playing economics professor.

 

[Antiwar]

No, in reality.

In reality, companies and countries get away with a lot that is against the law and unethical. Of course the last part depends on judging what's ethical.

 

[ecofarm]

In reality, companies and countries get away with a lot that is against the law and unethical. Of course the last part depends on judging what's ethical.

Puff puff pass, professor.

 

[Antiwar]

Puff puff pass.

**** a doodle do.

 

[Craig234]

In reality, companies and countries get away with a lot that is against the law and unethical. Of course the last part depends on judging what's ethical.

The point is that *systemically* they're required to follow profits and not ethics, however ethics are defined. That ethics are left to democracy and government - which are undermined corporations paying to buy public opinion and elections.

 

[ecofarm]

The point is that *systemically* they're required to follow profits and not ethics, however ethics are defined. That ethics are left to democracy and government - which are undermined corporations paying to buy public opinion and elections.

No, laws exist. They enforce morality. Ethics are, naturally, left to the market.

 

[Antiwar]

The point is that *systemically* they're required to follow profits and not ethics, however ethics are defined. That ethics are left to democracy and government - which are undermined corporations paying to buy public opinion and elections.

My reply was directed at a comment that you might not have seen.

 

[Craig234]

My reply was directed at a comment that you might not have seen.

You're right, but I was responding to the comment I quoted without context, reinforcing my point about the systemic issue with profit over public interest.

 

[Antiwar]

... laws ... enforce morality. Ethics are, naturally, left to the market.

Please make a good case for both claims?

 

[ecofarm]

Please make a good case for both claims?

Laws do exist and are enforced regarding the behavior of companies. They cannot, as pot-headedly stipulated, "do whatever they want".

 

[Antiwar]

Laws do exist and are enforced regarding the behavior of companies. They cannot, as pot-headedly stipulated, "do whatever they want".

I'd like to hear how laws enforce morality and the market enforces ethicality.

 

[ecofarm]

I'd like to hear how laws enforce morality and the market enforces ethicality.

Your pleas of ignorance are pathetic and the attention you so desperately desire is not forthcoming.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

I do think it's hilarious how the public perception of Twitter has changed from its a social media company that can do as it pleases to a community sure that must act in the good of society.

Yep, changes on the drop of a dime, depending on who it helps the most.

 

[Antiwar]

Your pleas of ignorance are pathetic and the attention you so desperately desire is not forthcoming.

It's so strange that people have to make up manure like that when they're asked to explain something they post on an internet forum that's supposed to be about discussing and debating politics.

 

[ecofarm]

It's so strange that people have to make up manure like that when they're asked to explain something they post on an internet forum that's supposed to be about discussing and debating politics.

"They just do whatever they want!"


lol

 

[Craig234]

I'd like to hear how laws enforce morality and the market enforces ethicality.

Laws do NOT require any morality from companies IMO, other than any morality in the laws themselves, which as I noted, are corrupted by companies influencing our politics; the argument that 'market enforces ethicality' has just a nugget of truth to it with the theory that 'consumer choice' can have ethics as part of its choice, as I posted, but in practice it's a very small influence, as shown by the two top private company examples I listed.

 

[Arlette]

Laws require a company to behave morally. The market requires a company to behave ethically. The idea that companies can do whatever they want in the name of profit is childish nonsense.

That's another big lie - that the massive rise in inequality over the last four decades was somehow the result of the natural workings of the market. Don't buy into that lie