Very long! Nevertheless, IMO confused. Amazon, for instance, was able to not take profit for a VERY long time, and benefited from a long term overall strategy to get into and capture many markets, as did consumers, who could now actually order stuff online and use AWS.
The claim about corporate law is extremely confused. The shareholders own and represent wealth invested in the firm, and as such should get returns from the firm. Thus, the law requires boards and firms to act in the interests of shareholders - should the board be able to siphon off money for its own pleasure, or shutter the company and trash the capital and investments? No. However - the law gives the board and executives very wide latitude to determine what is in the best interests of the shareholders, as the case of Amazon and many others shows is necessary - what is in the interest of the firm is very complex and hard to know, and giving them the ability to challenge day to day or even strategic decisions in court would be stifling and clog up business and court alike. Thus the claimed problem neither is the wound in corporate management, nor is it even a harm in all.
Many critiques of corporate governance or financial what’s er are much more pointed and deep than this, and succeed. This one does not, sadly.
The article is very much lacking in examples and details, whether laws, lawsuits, corporations, executives, and decisions. It flirts with high level ideas and vague pronouncements while not doing the important work of relating and implementing.
What does this mean? Can CIA add a voice and video chat feature if the deputy director of it wants it? Can the CIA freely access internal communications? How? Who does this? Does Larry know? How do you know?
> cia has control over the app along any dimension
This is an excessively strong claim. Can the CIA delete the app and end the project if they feel like it today? Can they see what I’m typing before I post it? Again, why? Who knows about this? How do they do it?
> more accurately that any action taken by the first party might be better viewed as being "really" taken by the second party
your comment was basically contradictory. As is this new one - google meet and google duo is a “CIA chat app”? Why?
What does that mean? Is someone previously on the Google Duo team a CIA officer? Is the leader of the team an asset? What design decisions are CIA adjacent? Where is this happening
> Why should a person's leisure be subject to the whims of employment?
Even the leisure time of fish and rabbits are subject to eating leaves and kelp. Time is useful. Your work may give 100x more leisure time to thousands of people. And even if it doesn’t, it’s still necessary - who will maintain the back ends for the porn sites? The mind reels to think of what would happen if Netflix’s sysadmins became simple bumbling 1xers. So many kdramas unwatched! One slip up in 2010 and million basic whitegirls not knowing be soft touch of The Office!
every moral imperative is also a personal choice. And honestly, if being a better coder saves 100k people a few hours in wasted time once, that’s ten person years - coming close to moral imperative! If your productivity tool’s new feature enables some engineering collaboration that builds a new bridge in Kenya, that saves a thousand person years?
so when google releases its 13th chat app, that’s really the CIA doing it? Netflix’s chaos monkey program is ackthuallee an intelligence scam to attack your distributed systems from within?
I am secretly controlled by the state because they force me to pay taxes. We are all IRS assets in their quest to build a global American tax-base imperial seat of power.
yeah I’d rather hire 7 skilled and well oiled Jews than an “equal opportunity” ratio mixture of 4 whites : 1 black. but there is a “civil rights act” and a lot of creative, anti-hegemonic jurisprudence enduring that my militant ascetic coding-Shtel will never be a reality. :(
you can just sue for discrimination though? That is common. It is considered legally dangerous to have an all white (or, less fantastically, 30% Jew 30% Asian 20% white 0% hispanicblack), but the mode of enforcement would be employment or hiring discrimination, not this...
realistically, while this may be overstepping the bounds of some faith in fairy tales like “democracy” and “untarnished will of citizens”, this is very very low on the ladder of nasty voting tactics. Compare to gerrymandering, or outright fraud, or SCOTUS deciding elections over and over, or much worse shenanigans in the 19th and 20th
Also OP’s article is “editorialized” in the same sense that Triumph of the Will is “biased”. A statement like
> The Post’s publication of a report that said Zuckerberg effectively “bought” the 2020 election also sparked outrage from the New York State Republican Party, which retweeted a link to the paper’s front-page coverage.
as a longtime CIA front myself (three of Allen Dulles’ secret children in a trench coat), I have it on good authority google’s sole purpose is to steal your data and then laugh at your porn and internet history. You sure love those tiny Asian feet! The search engine and internet thing just kinda fell out of it, and then became too big to stop by the time we realized it’d become the main thing
The claim about corporate law is extremely confused. The shareholders own and represent wealth invested in the firm, and as such should get returns from the firm. Thus, the law requires boards and firms to act in the interests of shareholders - should the board be able to siphon off money for its own pleasure, or shutter the company and trash the capital and investments? No. However - the law gives the board and executives very wide latitude to determine what is in the best interests of the shareholders, as the case of Amazon and many others shows is necessary - what is in the interest of the firm is very complex and hard to know, and giving them the ability to challenge day to day or even strategic decisions in court would be stifling and clog up business and court alike. Thus the claimed problem neither is the wound in corporate management, nor is it even a harm in all.
https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ref...
Many critiques of corporate governance or financial what’s er are much more pointed and deep than this, and succeed. This one does not, sadly.
The article is very much lacking in examples and details, whether laws, lawsuits, corporations, executives, and decisions. It flirts with high level ideas and vague pronouncements while not doing the important work of relating and implementing.