5 ms·
Needs a 0 added, $160B feels fair. Mesothelioma was $35B in 90s money, so about 3x that today. Companies keep getting away with this "cost of doing business" f
by bearjaws 23d ago
Needs a 0 added, $160B feels fair. Mesothelioma was $35B in 90s money, so about 3x that today.
Companies keep getting away with this "cost of doing business" fines, the justice department keeps failing at its duties.
The fines either need to wipe out these companies to the point the share holders hold the leadership accountable or nothing will change.
- jimmyjazz14 23d agoThe difference is asbestos clearly and directly caused harm, the social media addiction stuff stand on pretty dubious science to say the least.
- bearjaws 23d agoThe problem wasn't as simple as it caused harm, it was the companies knew it caused harm and did nothing. Just like how Meta, it's staff and leadership all knew they were making decisions that harmed people, and did nothing to stop it while profiting immensely.
- Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 23d agoTo be fair, aesbestos makers too knew and didn't stop selling it.
- inigyou 22d agoSo do sodium hydroxide makers, they know it's toxic and they still don't stop selling it.
- Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 21d agoIt's not the same. Aesbestos makers knew, their customers didn't, and they actively fought against the customers knowing it. Whereas NaOH makers know and go as far as writing it on the packaging.
- jplusequalt 23d ago>the social media addiction stuff stand on pretty dubious science to say the least. There are multiple studies showing that social media use leads to worse mental health in users.
- datakan 23d agoPunishable by fine just means its legal for a price. Its disgusting
- darkwizard42 23d agoWell, they are being asked to make changes as well, which presumably prevents the damage. It can be argued the changes don't go far enough so maybe "pay fine, reduce harm, but harm still permitted..."