• Carighan Maconar@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    This is why we need personal accountability by C-suites in regards to company misgivings. Yes companies are legally entities but we need like, 50% of the accountability is shared by the C-suites either as a group, or if they have it in writing for a specific thing, by a specific one, the CEO or CTO or whatever.

    A person. So there’s a very real example of the personal risk to freedom or wealth (the second will hit investors more I presume) if you do this.

    Plus I have a feeling that the moment it’s their ass on the line, these C-fuckers will, surprisingly, agree to do this shit less often.

    • fizzle@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Nah. With rules like this, no one could ever do anything. I mean the pizza shop on the corner couldn’t operate. Who would risk their home (if they’re lucky enough to have one) just to not make any money running a restaurant?

      Directors et cetera can be held accountable for criminal negligence with the current rules, it’s just that they rarely are, because we have a “captured state” - a government and judicial arm that’s terrified of upsetting the corporations that get them elected.

      The solution IMO is disallowing corporate campaign donations, and capping personal donations. Also harsher penalties for the corporations themselves, rather than just “cost of doing business” penalties.