Comment by ninjahawk1
10 days ago
I agree that they should, my point is that it’s difficult for several real logistical reasons. These companies for one do a large amount of lobbying and fundraising for political campaigns, they do control most digital infrastructure, with AI expanding are securing multi trillion dollar datacenter funds, etc.
There’s a ton of money at stake for the weathly aristocrats. They push politicians to delay or do things in favor of the companies above the people, and like I already said punishment is hard specifically because how do you fine someone with infinite money? They will just get more.
That’s not a punishment. I think that personal liability to the actual CEOs is the only way to get around this, leadership is generally never held responsible which means they can do whatever they want and the company bails out their greedy decisions.
It’s late stage capitalism and there’s no clear answer at least from my vantage point. Maybe if plug it into Claude it will give us a more coherent answer.
> and like I already said punishment is hard specifically because how do you fine someone with infinite money?
This isn't true though, if they had infinite money they wouldn't be spending every single second of their waking existence trying to get more of it and move higher on the leaderboard. If your opinion is that Meta/Zuck wouldn't care about being fined a year's worth of global revenue, or in his personal case, 90% of his net worth, then I'd really like to hear why. Because it contradicts all of their actual actions showing that all they care about is hoarding as much money as possible, meaning they'd very much care about it being taken away. Maybe I'm missing something.