- cross-posted to:
- pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
- cross-posted to:
- pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
You must log in or # to comment.
Interesting defense strategy
To be fair, “if you want cheap chocolate you’re going to have to live with some child slavery,” has been working for Nestle for many years now.
On Tuesday, the jury deliberated for only one day before agreeing that Meta should pay $375 million in civil damages for violating state consumer protections and misleading parents about the safety of its apps.
Not enough. These corporations operate on different math. They pay no taxes. They swim in currency. Pick the biggest realistic number you can imagine and then multiply it by the next biggest. Anything less will be factored out as the cost of business.
Case in point: $375 million is a mere fraction of what Meta spends in a bunch of different areas. Compared to profits, it’s practically rounding error. It won’t affect much.
This kind of thing deserves the corporate death penalty, confiscation of all assets and extreme fines for all shareholders.
@Maiq @circuitfarmer as someone for whom arithmetic doesn’t do it for me I’ve always been a fan of “50% of your opex for the entire time you did this is your fine”
I kinda like the idea of exponential fines. First time, exponent is 1, probably survivable, maybe second time with an exponent of 2, but if you don’t fix your shit it quickly become untenable.
Would be nice to do something similar on property taxes for single family home. Home 1 has an exponent of 1, home 2 has exponent of 2 and so on. Creates a natural block to people owning a stupid number of homes by just making it too damn expensive.
@SteevyT with the base number being calculated off of entity value (net worth) or operating expenses, whichever is higher, so that first fine lands hard
Meanwhile…
Inevitability implies the ability to see it coming, and take appropriate actions towards mitigation. Its the opposite of an excuse to do fuck-all, let-alone facilitation.
