this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
689 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
58727 readers
4370 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To clarify the cost of creating an LLC is a hundred bucks more or less depending on the jurisdiction. So Elon should be allowed to create "Musk Corp Oct2024 LLC" and then say or do anything under the guise of Musk Corp Oct2024 LLC, then if he's sued or fined just declare bankruptcy and create "Musk Corp Nov2024 LLC" and do whatever he wants?
At some point you have to recognize the individual is at fault. You can't just hide behind "Oh that wasn't me, that was the company" or " That was Musk of SpaceX having an opinion of Musk of Tesla, they are different entities."
If someone is attempting to be genuine and truthful when it comes to personal statements, fine, we can consider the protections. But if someone is flagrant and malicious then those protections no longer apply.
Sure, and you catch them on something else, like fraud. But if it's purely a financial failure, you bankrupt the corp and move on, because that's how the law is structured.
If we want different results, we need different legal structures. In this case, we shouldn't be granting liability protections in the first place if the person opening it has a history of bankruptcies or whatever. But once the liability protections are granted, they must be upheld or revoked, and if revoked, all prior actions should still be covered.
That's how the law should work, and we can't just waive away legal contracts because they're inconvenient, because that violates the rule of law.
Assuming I accept your premise, the premise of the article is that the actions are not being done by the company.
The key point is that Musk is at fault, not his company.
You can't just hide behind "the company" and do whatever you want.
At some point, as the EU is discussing, the individual is at fault.
It really depends on if Musk is acting as an officer of the company or on his own. If it's on his own, he's liable in the same way that any individual is liable, and only personal assets would be considered. If he's acting as an officer, then the company he's representing is liable.
At no point would other companies he runs be liable, unless he's also acting as an officer of those other orgs at the time. So they should never consider revenue from other firms, but merely revenue from his personal holdings.
That said, this is coming from a US perspective, I'm not familiar with EU law.
Yes that’s how it should be. But who determines if the person is doing it on purpose or if it’s a genuine mistake? There shouldn’t be ambiguity in the law, which is why you always either end up hurting corporations, or hurting citizens. Can’t please both with objective law.
How about a governing body with systems of checks and balances? You're pretending that laws are just out there enforcing themselves. The EU isn't just some dude with a vendetta. It's a large collection of people making decisions.
And in fact as a business, in order to do business in the EU, you've agreed that the EU has the ability to make decisions like this.
The system proven to show how corrupt it is every time it’s given a chance? Again, it’s cool when they’re doing to to someone else (specially Elon Musk who has too much power), until it’s you they’re coming for.
Actions you don't like aren't corrupt.
Actions Elon doesn't like aren't corrupt.
In fact arguably Elon is the corrupt individual in this case and the EU is simply applying the law to the corrupt individual.
Can you point to where I said or implied the opposite?
I never said Elon was in the right. I have stated that his company must be punished for the decisions it made, not the owner as per the protections guaranteed by the law to company owners.
You mean the law that violates your rights as the head of a corporation, which is supposed to protect your assets from those of the company? Cool.
So a company provides infinite protection?
"I didn't murder that man, the company did."
"The company paid individual X to murder them, not me."
No, that's ridiculous.
There is a line you can cross. Musk has crossed that line. Is it exactly written, if your name is Elon Musk and you own companies X, Y, & Z, and you perform actions A, B, C, you I'll be fined in this exact way? No. There is a grey area, and a group within the EU is allowed to make a more specific determination.
And do you know who agreed to these rules? Elon Musk. He chose to do business in the EU. He agreed to their rules.
No. Never even suggested that.
Ridiculous stretch. I have stated multiple times, as has the law, the company provides financial protections, did I ever say anything else? Of course if you are involved in the murder of somebody you should be prosecuted. If you can’t argue in good faith don’t bother responding.
No. You can clearly state in the law that “if your company is found to violate a consumer protection law, your other assets will be in jeopardy if we can’t figure out a way to fine your company”. I wonder what would be the consequences of explicitly informing companies of the consequences of their actions.
Yes he did. He agreed to the rule that states the company will be fined up to 6% of the yearly income, not whatever this is.