Non-IT News Thread
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller Why isnt it 90%? Why isnt the fine so significant that Google would never even think about doing it again?
Hrm. . . let see close google down from servicing the entire area (because google would just leave and not pay the fine) or attempt to get google to go bankrupt. . . hrm choice choices.
Or fine them a predetermined legal amount based on existing law. Of which they agreed to before starting operations in the area.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller Why isnt it 90%? Why isnt the fine so significant that Google would never even think about doing it again?
Why is 90% "never do it again" and 12% "insignificant"? 90% is only 7x 12%. If 12% is insignificant, then 90% would hardly be a "never do it again." Fines are based on what you did, not how much it hurts you. That might be liking fining Bill Gates $10bn for stealing a candy bar.
-
No, the fine should be significant enough that the shareholders would feel the pain, and get new directors in the company. 12% isnt doing that.
No google wouldnt shut down. They wouldnt lose money. They just wouldnt make as much,. -
@scottalanmiller Bill Gates wouldnt steal a candy bar. Google would use its monopoly position to shut out competition. They still will after this impotent fine.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller Why isnt it 90%? Why isnt the fine so significant that Google would never even think about doing it again?
So lets flip the question. Let's say you get caught lying about something trivial, which gives you an advantage and thus make more money.
Would you think that 90% of your total annual profit should be taken from you?
-
@DustinB3403 I dont lie.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller Why isnt it 90%? Why isnt the fine so significant that Google would never even think about doing it again?
Hrm. . . let see close google down from servicing the entire area (because google would just leave and not pay the fine) or attempt to get google to go bankrupt. . . hrm choice choices.
Or fine them a predetermined legal amount based on existing law. Of which they agreed to before starting operations in the area.
More importantly, not make every other company not avoid the area. If fines are capricious, the government are the criminals.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
No, the fine should be significant enough that the shareholders would feel the pain, and get new directors in the company. 12% isnt doing that.
No google wouldnt shut down. They wouldnt lose money. They just wouldnt make as much,.Why should the stock holders feel the pain of what a corporate identity did? It wasn't the stock holders who were in the meeting specifically demanding the business do this.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 I dont lie.
Google doesn't do anything wrong. Did that just solve the problem?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
No, the fine should be significant enough that the shareholders would feel the pain, and get new directors in the company. 12% isnt doing that.
No google wouldnt shut down. They wouldnt lose money. They just wouldnt make as much,.Why should the stock holders feel the pain of what a corporate identity did? It wasn't the stock holders who were in the meeting specifically demanding the business do this.
Well, the stock holders ARE the ones to blame. If you don't punish them, there is no punishment.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
No, the fine should be significant enough that the shareholders would feel the pain, and get new directors in the company. 12% isnt doing that.
No google wouldnt shut down. They wouldnt lose money. They just wouldnt make as much,.Why should the stock holders feel the pain of what a corporate identity did? It wasn't the stock holders who were in the meeting specifically demanding the business do this.
Well, the stock holders ARE the ones to blame. If you don't punish them, there is no punishment.
But the stock holders (generally) are investment providers, not decision makers. It's why boards exist. To tell the corporation what to do.
Significant investors could be on the board, and thus should feel the pain of doing something scrupulous I agree. But the peon investors have almost no say.
-
The peon investors are the people who are hoping to have bought low and to be able to sell high.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
It wasn't the stock holders who were in the meeting specifically demanding the business do this.
That's the hiring the hitman argument. Should it be legal to hire a hitman, and then the hitman only can be charged with manslaughter, not murder, because it was just a job. And the hirer gets away because they didn't pull the trigger?
The hitman system can't be a loophole, it makes crime.. not a crime.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
It wasn't the stock holders who were in the meeting specifically demanding the business do this.
That's the hiring the hitman argument. Should it be legal to hire a hitman, and then the hitman only can be charged with manslaughter, not murder, because it was just a job. And the hirer gets away because they didn't pull the trigger?
The hitman system can't be a loophole, it makes crime.. not a crime.
To clarify as you're nitpicking my words apart.
Most investors have little to no actual say in the business operations. It's the large investors who control 51% and up of the business who decide these things.
I agree, every investor has a say, but that say often is completely ignored.
-
@DustinB3403 Google DID do something wrong. That is why they were fined. A pittance that means nothing, but they were fined. I dont lie, and havent done anything wrong.
-
@DustinB3403 Shareholders are owners of the company. By investing they are agreeing with decisions of the board. Why shouldnt individual retail investors feel the pain of this fine? They agreed to the bad activity by investing.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 Google DID do something wrong. That is why they were fined. A pittance that means nothing, but they were fined. I dont lie, and havent done anything wrong.
It was a hypothetical about you lying and being caught. I get that google did something illegal, and they are being fined for it.
I disagree with you that they should be fined 90% of annual income because of this act. How much of their profit was from legitimate customers. Rather than people being fooled to shop on google?
Certainly not 90% of customers.
-
@DustinB3403 As Scott said it is only their profit being fined. I ask again why it shouldnt be all or a significant part of it? Neither of you has answered that.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 Shareholders are owners of the company. By investing they are agreeing with decisions of the board. Why shouldnt individual retail investors feel the pain of this fine? They agreed to the bad activity by investing.
If you think that way you are sorely mistaken. Just because all decisions are made public (to investors) doesn't mean that each and every investor would be able to come together and tell the business to knock it off.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 As Scott said it is only their profit being fined. I ask again why it shouldnt be all or a significant part of it? Neither of you has answered that.
And I posed a question to you, which you got defensive about. If you got caught lying about something with made you more money, should you be fined all of your profit for the year? Or even 90%?
