Well, it's 90% AI company, so I highly doubt it would be ok even without manchild.
Publicly traded companies are legally required to maximise profit for their shareholders. There inherently immoral.
I can agree that corporations are immoral, but no one has ever offered a citation for "legally required to maximize profit". Many corporations have failed in spectacular fashion and yet where are the lawsuits or criminal prosecutions for leaders that fail this supposed obligation?
What does exist is the fiduciary duty to be frank with shareholders, and many corporate officers have been sued for lying by omission. I believe that a corporate officer can choose to prioritize something else besides profit/value, so long as they inform the shareholders. In turn, the shareholders can fire the officer and replace them.
It's no surprise that most officers won't stick out their neck for non-financial causes, but let's be honest if it's simply self preservation rather than some oft-cited but wrong assertion of the law.
I don’t think there’s any legislated law that states that, but some courts treat it as a basic principle (especially in the state of Delaware). What I’ve usually seen as an early example of this is Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. from 1919. Henry Ford had amassed a surplus of more than $60 million (equally to more than $1.1 billion today) and wanted to reinvest that money in expanding the business with new factories while continuing to raise wages and cut prices on the Model T. As part of this he wanted to cease special shareholder dividends he had been playing out of the surplus. Brothers John Francis Dodge and Horace Elgin Dodge owned 10% of Ford and sued to keep the dividend payments coming.
The court ruled that Ford had to pay out a dividend of more than $19 million (more than $360 million today) to the minority shareholders. In the ruling, in a non-binding section, the judge wrote:
A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of men to attain that end and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits or to the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.
Ford was accused of trying to turn the business into a charity. Behind the scenes, though, one of his main motivations for not wanting to pay the dividend was suspicion that the Dodge brothers were using the dividends from his successful business to setup a rival car company to compete against him, which was exactly what they were doing.
It seems the interpretation of the ruling is controversial, even as to whether “maximize shareholder value” is actually enforceable or what the judge meant. I continue to think that the more investors a company has, the less the company will be able to focus on what’s best for the company, customers, and employees in the long run.
It's a consequence of the eBay vs Newmark ruling. Arguments against it are theoretical only and haven't been tested, and would be next to impossible to achieve with extant companies that don't already have advertised social priorities.
let’s be honest if it’s simply self preservation rather than some oft-cited but wrong assertion of the law.
For the purposes of my point in this discussion, the distinction doesn't matter. Whether the pressure to maximise profit over morality is a legal requirement or self preservation, the end result is inherent immorality
The case "eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Craig Newmark, et al." in Delaware's Court of Chancery does not support the assertion at all. What the two corporate officers did wrong was to dilute a minority stakeholder's shares for an impermissible reason under Delaware law. One permissible reason to justify such dilution would be if the change was "reasonable to promote shareholder value" (page 49). The two officers could not prove that their actions were reasonable, nor could they prove any other permissible reason, so they lost the case.
At bottom, the major question in that case was whether the corporate officers can conspire with the majority stakeholders to harm a minority stakeholder. It was about two corporate officers that were acting out of self preservation (page 59):
Jim and Craig simply disliked the possibility that he Grim Reaper someday will catch up with them and that a company like eBay might, in the future, purchase a controlling interest in craigslist.
The minor question (whether shareholder value would be promoted) could have been answered in the affirmative and those two would still have lost the case, because Delaware law also doesn't allow harming a stakeholder, violating their fiduciary duty to eBay in this case (page 61):
If Jim and Craig were the only stockholders affected by their decisions, then there would be no one to object. eBay, however, holds a significant stake in craigslist, and Jim and Craig’s actions affect others besides themselves.
The court only looked at the minor question to appeal-proof the ruling, because the two corporate officers had tried to match their argument to an earlier DE Supreme Court ruling.
For the purposes of my point in this discussion, the distinction doesn't matter.
I disagree. Drawing the correct conclusion from the wrong cause is pure sophistry (ie "arbitrary, inauthentic, or deceptive styles of reasoning" -Wikipedia). It is intellectually dishonest to state a conclusion but then decline to support your basis, dismiss your own basis as irrelevant, and then circularly assert that the conclusion stands on its own.
Companies are inherently immoral. Whether the pressure that creates that reality is from this particular case or whether it comes from self preservatio is genuinely irrelevant to my point.
Taking away Musk won't make a company moral, because all publicly traded companies are immoral.
I don't know why this particular case gets people ignoring the topic at hand to argue about it whenever it's mentioned...
If you believe all companies are immoral then do you also believe boycotts are pointless? If I have to pay for internet, I might as well pay for Starlink if it best fits my needs?
Boycotts aren't pointless, because they force companies to change by attacking their bottom line/share value. It doesn't make them moral, it just hits them where it hurts.
I don't like the way @Zwuselmaus attacks a weak point in your comment, but a weak point it is. It's not actually law (at least concerning USA and UK), yet in principle you are correct, at least in my opinion:
Can a Publicly Listed Company Be Sued for Not Maximizing Profit?
Publicly listed companies are subject to more stringent regulations than private companies due to the fact that they are owned by shareholders who have invested in the company expecting financial returns. In this context, the legal obligations of maximizing profit are more clearly defined, though not as absolute as one might think.
A Quick Search (tm) reveals many similar answers.
The quote you gave suggests that companies are legally expected to maximise profit, but with caveats/nuance. It also highlights shareholder pressure towards the same goal.
If the claim is that fear of legal action doesn't technically count as 'legally required ", then sure, I used the wrong word. But as I said elsewhere, it doesn't change my point.
But as I said elsewhere, it doesn’t change my point.
Agreed.
Which law is that?
I answered elsewhere in the conversation chain.
Can you tell the name of that law again?
I answered it elsewhere. If you want real discussion, respond to that.
Then I also need a link to the definition of "arrogance"
Starlink satellites are at 550km and without boosting they fall back to earth in 2 to 5 years. New ones are being put at 480km where the orbit of a dead satellite decays only in few months. The oldest ones are already falling back to earth and burning up in the atmosphere.
I like how this answers the question perfectly yet indirectly.
This is really interesting. It had never occurred to me that satellites have propulsion systems. I always assumed that they were placed such that they would remain in orbit indefinitely.
SpaceX wouldn't even exist without Musk and is deeply entwined with all his bullshit magical thinking or rather lying.
And as it stands right now their whole business model is deeply immoral, imo. Shooting shit into space, burning fucktons of fossil fuel, all to achieve things that could better be achieved with less effort. E.g. working on proper internet infrastructure in the USA instead of trying to solve the problem for rich people only.
But if you're asking if it would be a good idea to remove Musk from that company I'd still say yes.
Musk (or one of his lackeys that has more of a brain then him) intentionally higher people with similar social views.
So yeah probably
That depends on why you think it's immoral today.
That was kind of the reason for the question.
Basically, Musk is the reason I would not give the company money. The Kessler syndrome was the only other thing on my radar, but it sounds like that’s not really an issue based on other responses.
So I was hoping to find if there were any other issues with the company I should be aware of…
The way I see it, Starlink is more a military tech than civilian. It is a huge gamechanger on the battlefield and in the drone technology - it is the cheapest and most reliable way to obtain high speed network connection on a middlestrike drone.
So what Starlink would do depends on the will of American government. And that depends on who's in charge. With all the consequences.
Good point - I guess it’s pretty on par with GPS in that way…
Not sure if the U.S. nationalizing the system would be better or worse…
GPS is much easier to jam.
I mean Volkswagen is now a normal car-brand loved by millions since that dictator who created the brand through Porshe died. So yes a brand can become moral after the fact that their creator was an immoral person.
Considering that the crator of Volkswagen was way worse than Elon.
Not sure you want to use VW for current morality. What with the whole "constantly getting caught trying to skirt emission standards and other legal minimums that cost them money to hold to"
Well I was answering the question. But VW is now pushing EV's anyway and it's still, that is my opinion, more moral than Elon.
I give Volkswagen the benefit of the doubt that they had a turn-around and their massive investments in EV will pay off.
more moral than Elon
That is an extremely low bar to set, and does not mean they are moral at all.
While it's good they're going the EV way now I think that's more of a market strategy thing than a moral decision.
While yes they're no longer on the actively shooting babies in the face level bad, I'm not sure they're a good example of a moral company is my point
More moral than the thin skinned Nazi nepo baby sure but that's a low bar
Pushing EV today is just following the market trends and not strictly a moral choice
Company culture comes from top.
So.. very likely yes.
just randomly on the topic of Kessler syndrome. could we make a big sticky thing to just throw into orbit and like. Stick to everything. like a space lint roller or one of those slimes people use to clean car vents. Just turn it all back into one big garbage ball somehow. OR accelerate the process of forming rings somehow.
The short answer: no
The slightly longer answer: also no. Because orbits don't work that way and space is really really big
There are companies who have plans for cleaning up space debris by grabbing it in various ways, but it's not really feasible for more than super specific targets in very narrow edge cases
For most of the stuff currently in orbit, there's not much danger regarding Kessler syndrome, as their orbits decay in a couple years to maybe decades in extreme cases
The bigger problem with current satellite constellations is the big amount of metal spreading into the upper atmosphere when they burn up (not a problem when a couple satellites do it, but problematic when hundreds do), as well as disturbing ground based telescopes
Ty! This the the longer answer I was really looking for. I figured it was probably a scale problem but it's nice to have that confirmed.
big net
I'm not up to say on the math involved, but I'd guess things up there are moving too fast for that to work on a time scale that would be useful.
Capitalism is inherently immoral.
I can't say I despise capitalism because it has worked relatively well. I do despise shareholders and publicly traded companies
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!