upvote

points

by augment_me1 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby monideas1 hours ago|
next
[-]
This isn’t a case of being punished for doing the right thing. The right thing is retaining control of your own company and doing so is not “authoritarian”.
reply
upvoteby Henchman2143 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Sorry but IMO this sort of company structure should not be allowed. Private companies should not be able to issue stocks the way Zuck & Elon have. Pull Meta’s charter and redistribute their assets. Let that serve as a notice to Elon that he’s next.
reply
upvoteby monideas7 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Under that standard why not just strip you of all your wealth and property and redistribute it? You’re not deserving of anything at all.
reply
upvoteby kermatt53 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
No, it's a case of consequences for making incredibly poor personal decisions while being in a very visible position in a very visible company.

The man is smart enough to know he was playing with fire, and he got burned. The literal definition of FAFO.

reply
upvoteby monideas3 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Having a libido is fairly normal for most non-castrated men, at least historically speaking. In modern times, men are in seemingly depressed and in general need of various pills to help with erectile dysfunction, which perhaps in part explains the low birth rates.
reply
upvoteby alphawhisky1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
To be honest, I don't know how to succinctly tell you that this is a bad take. For starters, that company has hoovered enough tax money that we should all be on the board. Secondly, encouraging family feudalism is crazy if you even claim to be a supporter of capitalism and the free market. Thirdly, you're not a tech baron and never will be, especially if you can't trust that your investments are concerned with your interests and goals due to CEO exceptionalism. Just saying. If he was a judge, he would be disbarred. This company wants to be a stupid percentage of our GDP, so they're gonna have to suck it up and hold themselves to the standards of a public office.
reply
upvoteby monideas8 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
He’s not a judge, he’s a private citizen, he holds no office. Your thinking is very confused.
reply
upvoteby abhinai1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Yep. I learnt that lesson early on in my company. Never lose control of the board.
reply
upvoteby cornfieldlabs1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
A lesson for future entrepreneurs. Follow the rules and lose.
reply
upvoteby vrmiguel1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Right. Maybe there's also some lesson about not cheating on your wife and skirting around export bans.
reply
upvoteby fermentation58 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
He followed the rules?
reply
upvoteby egisspegis1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Are the rules "you must not control your own company"?
reply
upvoteby zen9288 minutes ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> The lesson is that if you do the right, non-authoritarian thing, you get punished

Cheating on your wife and betraying your country is the right, non authoritarian thing? We arent having this discussion for any other reason than those two events happening. Its an insane lens of entitlement to view the situation as if he should indefinitely retain ownership due to ... what? Existing? But never have any of his actions have consequences. That's the promise you make by positioning the board shares in that manner: you promise to have accountability. Finding it a weakness to answer to others for your actions is definitely a popular style of thinking amongst the current group of wanna-be authoritarians in the presidential cabinet, "strange" how your first two examples of CEOs unwaveringly align with that political faction huh?

reply
upvoteby nullderef1 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Putting his wife on the board would definitely not have helped lol
reply