6 ms·

Dissolve the company. Jail the C levels. End of story. If this ends in another fine to put into a ledger book I'll scream. The fine ends up back in their pocke

Dissolve the company. Jail the C levels. End of story. If this ends in another fine to put into a ledger book I'll scream. The fine ends up back in their pockets in months in the form of loans and grants and tax avoidances and so on. The world no longer needs Facebook and its leaders. It does not need its technology. It does not need the ideas of the people that are there. If you are still working there, you are complicit in acting in a company that is actively seeking to control a populous. I understand it's hard not to work for "big tech" and not work for a company trying to control populous. So yes. I agree. Stop letting them play games with the rules we spent generations putting in place to protect our citizenship.

dylan604 26d ago
> If this ends in another fine to put into a ledger book I'll scream. Get your pillow ready, because this is the only thing that'll happen if the verdict goes against them. Of course, the verdict could go the other way so no fine is levied at all. Maybe get a second pillow just in case
- abirch 26d ago
  Buy a copy of Careless People to read between the tears.
  - rhyperior 26d ago
    Fascinating story. The author was hopelessly ignorant and guilty of facilitating, but the execs were so devoid of anything approaching ethics or morality. Explains a lot if true.
    - SoftTalker 26d ago
      Unless you've been on the inside at the top levels of huge companies, you don't know about the sheer sociopathy of the people there. It's easy, even normal, to be naive as a regular employee, even one at a fairly high management level.
      - consensus1 26d ago
        By this comment I assume you have been one of these executives at a huge company?
      - rhyperior 25d ago
        Yes and no. I have been on the inside and watched as a very senior but non-C-suite, one who works with the officers and next in line for C. Cultures reinforce themselves in groups of people and so yes you see all the narcissism and sociopathy in action but the limits and what’s acceptable differ. Not all companies behave like Meta on the inside.
- deaux 26d ago
  There are definitely other things that could happen, that would not make OP scream. Not by the justice department though, that's true.
roosterIllusi0n 26d ago
Voters put big tech in charge. Blaming the people who need jobs to not be homeless instead of the people who continually vote for billionaires to abuse everyone is ridiculous. Did you go door to door telling your neighbors to vote against the current president and his party? Voters are the ones voting for our current hellscape. It can only be stopped with voting.
- digitaltrees 26d ago
  There are other jobs though no? Or you could start a company.
shit_game 26d ago
> The fine ends up back in their pockets in months in the form of loans and grants and tax avoidances and so on. More importantly and less often talked about, these fines end up back in their pockets because Meta is a defense contractor in all but name. Governments gladly buy data from these companies; the US hapily buys data because it circumvents the 4th amendment. The reason the US does not have strong data privacy laws is because strong data privacy laws are antithetical to big tech, technofascism, and a surveilance state. Yes, the people running these companies are doing evil unto the world for profit, and arguably yes, they ought to face justice for such, and yes, what they are doing ought to be illegal because it is morally wrong and incredibly damaging. But when that justice is monopolized by the same governments that rely on these evil acts to fulfil their desire for power and self preservation, nothing will happen. Meta has been complicit in multiple genocides, yet you will never see it on any lists that harm its business.
- mannanj 26d ago
  Everything is a rich man's trick
jerf 26d ago
"If this ends in another fine to put into a ledger book I'll scream." You may need this: https://eathealthy365.com/learn-to-scream-like-a-pro-the-definitive-vocal-guide/ https://eathealthy365.com/learn-to-scream-like-a-pro-the-def...
- digitaltrees 26d ago
  Excellent post. 10 out of 10. Would recommend.
freetanga 26d ago
>> If you are still working there, you are complicit in acting in a company that is actively seeking to control a populous. +1.
digitaltrees 26d ago
Or build an open source self hosted version that is not run on adds.
- deaux 26d ago
  There are dozens of these.
TFNA 26d ago
"The world no longer needs Facebook and its leaders. It does not need its technology." Meta owns WhatsApp, which is core infrastructure in many countries now where it has basically replaced the PSTN. If WhatsApp went down without a long transition process first, it would take myriad small businesses down with it. I would love to see harsh punishments and jailed executives, but the world still needs the company for the time being.
- axelthegerman 26d ago
  We really don't. If that finally does happen, people are quick to adapt to change it will use one of the many alternatives, maybe even one that's interoperable or open so we're not in the same mess five years later
  - bigyabai 26d ago
    > it will use one of the many alternatives, maybe even one that's interoperable or open If the collapse of Twitter is any indication, it might just drive people to even worse and more exploitative platforms instead.
- drivebyhooting 26d ago
  Wasn’t WhatsApp famously created by a team of 20 people? It’s not meta’s contribution to the world. It can be cleanly extracted from the company. Or a replacement created if need be.
- MissTake 26d ago
  A myriad of small businesses also use Facebook as their public facing website.
  - lrem 26d ago
    I find that truly mystifying. I won’t go through the hassle of opening an account on any platform just to see some dumbed down website. I can’t be the only one, can I?
  - 26d ago
digitaltrees 26d ago
America has a profound problem. It defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights. But it also applies the same restrictions and punishments as people without factoring in the underlying advantages a company has when breaking the law for profit. 1. Perpetual existence means breaking the law is a short term problem that is well worth the long term benefit — companies essentially live for ever and out live many of the consequences of their actions 2. They can’t be physically jailed and are rarely punished with equivalent restrictions. There is no ankle bracelet for bad companies. So the punishments are inadequate to serve as a deterrent, 3. Fines are rarely of a scale that threatens existence so they become just another cost of business that can be financially modeled 4. The decision makers almost never suffer the consequences of their companies actions. It’s so rare at this point for executives to face personal responsibility in terms of fines, or jail time that there is a absolute incentive to ignore laws in pursuit of short term earnings 5. There is a two tier system, large companies can abuse the legal process by outspending prosecution from the government or harmed parties. Law suits drag on so long that it’s essential a get out of jail free card for companies that are large enough. 6. It’s pretty clear the government wants Facebook to spy on and persuade the population of the world. So this behavior is a “national defense” asset and any harm is justified as being necessary for the preservation of that asset. I could go on but until most of these are fixed, expect Facebook in particular to evade any meaningful punishment.
- duped 26d ago
  > it defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights It absolutely does not but people keep repeating this on social media
  - blooalien 26d ago
    > it defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights > > It absolutely does not but people keep repeating this on social media Funny how some folks can comment here on the world's biggest library and communications system but they can't take a minute to search out and read some actual details on the thing they're commenting about first. For example, Wikipedia's Corporate Personhood article [1] took me less than 5 seconds to find (including the time it took to open a web browser to my favorite search engine), and another two seconds to read enough to find that the very first sentence says some (not all) legal rights... The rest of the article has all the details anyone needs to understand what that first sentence actually means. > Notion that corporations can have some legal rights, responsibilities and accountability (emphasis mine) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Transfinity 26d ago
> Jail the C levels. Also the board and anyone who's ever held more than 1% of the stock.

dylan604 26d ago

> If this ends in another fine to put into a ledger book I'll scream. Get your pillow ready, because this is the only thing that'll happen if the verdict goes against them. Of course, the verdict could go the other way so no fine is levied at all. Maybe get a second pillow just in case

abirch 26d ago
Buy a copy of Careless People to read between the tears.
- rhyperior 26d ago
  Fascinating story. The author was hopelessly ignorant and guilty of facilitating, but the execs were so devoid of anything approaching ethics or morality. Explains a lot if true.
  - SoftTalker 26d ago
    Unless you've been on the inside at the top levels of huge companies, you don't know about the sheer sociopathy of the people there. It's easy, even normal, to be naive as a regular employee, even one at a fairly high management level.
    - consensus1 26d ago
      By this comment I assume you have been one of these executives at a huge company?
    - rhyperior 25d ago
      Yes and no. I have been on the inside and watched as a very senior but non-C-suite, one who works with the officers and next in line for C. Cultures reinforce themselves in groups of people and so yes you see all the narcissism and sociopathy in action but the limits and what’s acceptable differ. Not all companies behave like Meta on the inside.
deaux 26d ago
There are definitely other things that could happen, that would not make OP scream. Not by the justice department though, that's true.

roosterIllusi0n 26d ago

Voters put big tech in charge. Blaming the people who need jobs to not be homeless instead of the people who continually vote for billionaires to abuse everyone is ridiculous. Did you go door to door telling your neighbors to vote against the current president and his party? Voters are the ones voting for our current hellscape. It can only be stopped with voting.

digitaltrees 26d ago
There are other jobs though no? Or you could start a company.

shit_game 26d ago

> The fine ends up back in their pockets in months in the form of loans and grants and tax avoidances and so on. More importantly and less often talked about, these fines end up back in their pockets because Meta is a defense contractor in all but name. Governments gladly buy data from these companies; the US hapily buys data because it circumvents the 4th amendment. The reason the US does not have strong data privacy laws is because strong data privacy laws are antithetical to big tech, technofascism, and a surveilance state. Yes, the people running these companies are doing evil unto the world for profit, and arguably yes, they ought to face justice for such, and yes, what they are doing ought to be illegal because it is morally wrong and incredibly damaging. But when that justice is monopolized by the same governments that rely on these evil acts to fulfil their desire for power and self preservation, nothing will happen. Meta has been complicit in multiple genocides, yet you will never see it on any lists that harm its business.

mannanj 26d ago
Everything is a rich man's trick

jerf 26d ago

"If this ends in another fine to put into a ledger book I'll scream." You may need this: https://eathealthy365.com/learn-to-scream-like-a-pro-the-definitive-vocal-guide/ https://eathealthy365.com/learn-to-scream-like-a-pro-the-def...

digitaltrees 26d ago
Excellent post. 10 out of 10. Would recommend.

freetanga 26d ago

>> If you are still working there, you are complicit in acting in a company that is actively seeking to control a populous. +1.

digitaltrees 26d ago

Or build an open source self hosted version that is not run on adds.

deaux 26d ago
There are dozens of these.

TFNA 26d ago

"The world no longer needs Facebook and its leaders. It does not need its technology." Meta owns WhatsApp, which is core infrastructure in many countries now where it has basically replaced the PSTN. If WhatsApp went down without a long transition process first, it would take myriad small businesses down with it. I would love to see harsh punishments and jailed executives, but the world still needs the company for the time being.

axelthegerman 26d ago
We really don't. If that finally does happen, people are quick to adapt to change it will use one of the many alternatives, maybe even one that's interoperable or open so we're not in the same mess five years later
- bigyabai 26d ago
  > it will use one of the many alternatives, maybe even one that's interoperable or open If the collapse of Twitter is any indication, it might just drive people to even worse and more exploitative platforms instead.
drivebyhooting 26d ago
Wasn’t WhatsApp famously created by a team of 20 people? It’s not meta’s contribution to the world. It can be cleanly extracted from the company. Or a replacement created if need be.
MissTake 26d ago
A myriad of small businesses also use Facebook as their public facing website.
- lrem 26d ago
  I find that truly mystifying. I won’t go through the hassle of opening an account on any platform just to see some dumbed down website. I can’t be the only one, can I?
- 26d ago

digitaltrees 26d ago

America has a profound problem. It defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights. But it also applies the same restrictions and punishments as people without factoring in the underlying advantages a company has when breaking the law for profit. 1. Perpetual existence means breaking the law is a short term problem that is well worth the long term benefit — companies essentially live for ever and out live many of the consequences of their actions 2. They can’t be physically jailed and are rarely punished with equivalent restrictions. There is no ankle bracelet for bad companies. So the punishments are inadequate to serve as a deterrent, 3. Fines are rarely of a scale that threatens existence so they become just another cost of business that can be financially modeled 4. The decision makers almost never suffer the consequences of their companies actions. It’s so rare at this point for executives to face personal responsibility in terms of fines, or jail time that there is a absolute incentive to ignore laws in pursuit of short term earnings 5. There is a two tier system, large companies can abuse the legal process by outspending prosecution from the government or harmed parties. Law suits drag on so long that it’s essential a get out of jail free card for companies that are large enough. 6. It’s pretty clear the government wants Facebook to spy on and persuade the population of the world. So this behavior is a “national defense” asset and any harm is justified as being necessary for the preservation of that asset. I could go on but until most of these are fixed, expect Facebook in particular to evade any meaningful punishment.

duped 26d ago
> it defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights It absolutely does not but people keep repeating this on social media
- blooalien 26d ago
  > it defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights > > It absolutely does not but people keep repeating this on social media Funny how some folks can comment here on the world's biggest library and communications system but they can't take a minute to search out and read some actual details on the thing they're commenting about first. For example, Wikipedia's Corporate Personhood article [1] took me less than 5 seconds to find (including the time it took to open a web browser to my favorite search engine), and another two seconds to read enough to find that the very first sentence says some (not all) legal rights... The rest of the article has all the details anyone needs to understand what that first sentence actually means. > Notion that corporations can have some legal rights, responsibilities and accountability (emphasis mine) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Transfinity 26d ago

> Jail the C levels. Also the board and anyone who's ever held more than 1% of the stock.