this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
839 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59358 readers
6604 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 133 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

WOW. That's interesting. Kinda brilliant if it works. Wouldn't work in the US, unfortunately.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 108 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It's the same thing Brazil did.

He's rich enough that he's kind of a parent corporation by himself, so:

X was previously accused of violating the Digital Services Act (DSA), which could result in fines of up to 6 percent of total worldwide annual turnover. That fine would be levied on the "provider" of X, which could be defined to include other Musk-led firms.

But yeah, American law has been limited so the buck stops at the company which declares bankruptcy and the money starts a new company.

Not everyone else system is as shitty

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 121 points 4 weeks ago (20 children)

fine the fucker for 20% of his net "worth", that should give him some pause

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 102 points 4 weeks ago

Do it. The crimes are almost entirely by him personally, and had unprecedented damage. He should be responsible with all his money - a Twitter-sized blow would be a slap on the wrist as the platform is worth just $5B or thereabouts.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 70 points 4 weeks ago

Less considering more doing

[–] GeneralInterest@lemmy.world 62 points 4 weeks ago
[–] Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world 56 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

How about making them such a high percentage that it would genuinely impact their bottom line and not a measly amount calculated as "cost of doing business"

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

4% of gross revenue is not a negligible amount. For no company.

[–] threeganzi@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 weeks ago

Probably, but it would depend on how much gross revenue they make on said practice, and how often they get a fine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pandapoo@sh.itjust.works 55 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

That would be extra funny, considering at least some motivation behind his initially bidding on Twitter, was to cash out his absurdly overvalued Tesla stock, without causing it to crash.

Clearly he signed that initial Delaware contract while he was still riding high on mania, but still, his desire to convert his overpriced Tesla stock played no small part. The remaining rationale was mostly drug-induced psychosis, but I digress.

So, calculating fines based on his overpriced assets, forcing him to sell off a bunch of those shitty assets, and risking their price falling closer to their true worth, would be hilarious.

It's also why I am skeptical that they'll do it, or at least I'm skeptical they'll do it in a way that would trigger a domino effect, or market contagion.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 40 points 4 weeks ago

It's finally time to hold the people hiding behind the companies accountable!!

woohoo!

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 33 points 4 weeks ago

break his ability to finance the orange felon

[–] Zannsolo@lemmy.world 23 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean he is leveraging his Tesla stock

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 22 points 4 weeks ago
[–] Disgracefulone 6 points 4 weeks ago

Do it if you're bad

load more comments
view more: next ›