Just to play Devils advokat here: Wouldn't that just completely discourage anyone from taking up a new CEO or similar role since you are now liable for some illegal activities that might have happened without your knowledge and long time ago.

You would at least need very good evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the person in question actively put into motion the illegal activity and knew that it was illegal.

Placing blame on a single individual might feel satisfying but does not nessesarly punish the correct responsible. When cooperations get as large as Nvidia, Intel etc. it functions in my opinion like one giant complex organism and legal issues like these are often systemic and involves hundreds of people who took decisions.

I think massive and progressive fines are in fact a good tool because it punishes the "organism" that is truly to blame and not an individual who might be to blame.

[–] msage@programming.dev 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, stop putting randos in the positions of power.

Selling everyone and everything to the highest bidder should be discouraged and punished. The yes-men bellow will fall in line.

[–] TDCN@feddit.dk 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Then who do you suggest should be in power instead? I'm just asking because I would not know. To me personally they will always be a "rando"

[–] msage@programming.dev 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Alright, let me rephrase that.

Stop putting power-hungry people into positions of power. Put there people who care about others, and don't want the power. Works for government too.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 4 points 7 months ago

Exactly. Same in every club, society and whatnot. The power hungry with strong narcissistic traits (not the mental health diagnosis, mind you) are those who promote their buddies and do everything to stay in power. Its essentially the single biggest problem we have. You can pin mostly all and everything that is wrong with our world on those traits (basically the dark triad), yet they are promoted everywhere. You need to have „elbows“ even in primary school. Just a fool wouldn’t see the outcome of that.

[–] TDCN@feddit.dk 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I agree but yet here we are... And I don't think just putting people in jail helps. But it should definitely have consequences, that's for sure, but they must first be effective for what they are trying to solve.

[–] msage@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago

I am all for rehabilitative care and what not.

But psycho- and sociopaths should be behind bars. I'm not even sure if they can be helped.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That won't work.

[–] msage@programming.dev 0 points 7 months ago

No u

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 8 points 7 months ago

And you played the devils advocate well but the reality is very different. As a former CEO I can tell you that there definitely are jail sentences possible for rather minor offenses (where I live, mind you) like not answering a letter by the government because you were busy. Granted, you do have to be very overwhelmed to not answer those for an extended period but it happens.

But its the same for small companies that male no profit as it is for multi billion dollar companies.

I suppose you get the problem here. We have always pinned it on the individual because fines are a corpos wet dream. Same readon why the country I live in has mostly fines for speeding (so it doesnt affect the rich).

So, mandatory jail sentences, increasing with the companies profit.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Disincentivizing people taking up massive responsibilities that affect the wellbeing of more than a hundred people, sometimes billions, is absolutely the best way to insure that only selfless and competent people take the position.

Fuck em, CEOs are a waste of space, just make everything a cooperative or something.

[–] TDCN@feddit.dk 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think it is naive to think that only selfless and competent people will take the role then. If properly competent you'd see the massive risk of jail and be highly discouraged to take the position. Noone in their right mind would risk jailtime for a job position.

On the other hand, billionaires, risktakers and gamblers would be more than willing to take such a role for the power it gives. They don't really care since billionaires manage their risks with all the money they have, and risktakers and gamblers simply just dont care about it untill it hits them.

So it solves nothing

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If selfish or incompetent people take the role they go to jail, if highly ethical people take the role they don't go to jail. Generally how laws are supposed to be written.

[–] TDCN@feddit.dk 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You act like Ethics are somehow subjective.

[–] TDCN@feddit.dk 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well sometimes it is.. very much subjective... That's why different countries have different laws. Each country have subjective views on what should be punished or not and how much punishment is right. If Ethics is always objective and like a maths equation that can be solved we should all just have the same laws because it's objective.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

FiniteBanjo: You act like Ethics are somehow subjective.

TDCN: Well sometimes it is… very much subjective…

Found the CEO.

[–] TDCN@feddit.dk 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Lol... You are not even trying to argue your case. Why are you getting personal? No need to be like that.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 7 months ago

I think the communications failed around the time you started arguing against ethics themselves, with an added appeal to authority fallacy.