this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024

334 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

58727 readers

4885 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

334

EU considers calculating X fines by including revenue from Musk’s other firms (arstechnica.com)

submitted 8 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 2 points 29 minutes ago

break his ability to finance the orange felon

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

fine the fucker for 20% of his net "worth", that should give him some pause

[–] [email protected] 63 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

WOW. That's interesting. Kinda brilliant if it works. Wouldn't work in the US, unfortunately.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 7 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I mean he is leveraging his Tesla stock

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 minutes ago* (last edited 3 minutes ago)

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.

[+] [email protected] -42 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (6 children)

It’s easy to support when Elon is the recipient, but is this a good precedent to set?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 46 minutes ago

Yes. Next question.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 hours ago

Absolutely and without question yes

[–] [email protected] 74 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 28 minutes ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 51 minutes ago

I don't think I quite agree about governments being predatory by nature.

Well, if you look at the history you might change your mind. If you look at the Top 10 Most Politically Influential Countries, by US News, you will notice that out of the 10, at least half cannot be considered "beneficial".

I hope we can agree that Russia (1) and China (3) are predatory. But in case you don't believe so:
- Russia: I guess you can look at the recent invasion of Ukraine, or the arrest of Navalny for "extremism", or the arrest of Maria Ponomarenko for speaking against the war in Ukraine.
- China: I shouldn't need to link anything, but at least I'll point to Chen Pinlin arrested for the crime of making a documentary.
We have the UAE (9) and Saudi Arabia (7), who will literally kill you for the crime of being a journalist [SA], being gay [SA], and arrest you for speaking against them [UAE]
Israel (5): I guess it depends on where you stand with the current Israel-Hamas situation. But I wouldn't say Israel has an utopian government.
Iran (10): From numerous results from a quick Google search, I can point to Pakhshan Azizi being sentenced to death for her humanitarian work.

That's 6/10 of the most influential governments being provably predatory against their own citizens.

I mean, they often can’t even jail executives for criminal decisions or negligence.

That's one of the unfortunate advantages of creating companies, but I believe such protections are needed for the average citizen who wants to start their own business. Maybe you disagree.

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.

If you must "protect" your citizens at all cost from misinformation being spread on X, then you can do what Brazil did, and just force all ISPs to block traffic to it, then fine thousands of dollars to those who get caught using a VPN to access it. This is also extremely predatory (against X and Brazil citizens), but nobody cared for some reason.

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.

Hopefully it can be solved in a way that doesn't harm small businesses.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 28 minutes ago

Allowing limited liability companies to exist without requiring them to be covered by liability insurance is institutionalised market failure.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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.

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

Shit take. Get judged by peers

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 hours ago

Everyone thanks you for your helpful insight into this topic.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 hours ago

Why not? Which person owning multiple companies would be disadvantaged in a way that could be considered unfair in this way?