Publicly traded companies are legally required to maximise profit for their shareholders. There inherently immoral.

Oh oh, yo, porfa!

Boycotts aren't pointless, because they force companies to change by attacking their bottom line/share value. It doesn't make them moral, it just hits them where it hurts.

It's a Piefed feature that appeared when we updated the instance. I don't think we can disable it completely, but when I get the chance, I'll increase it to a stupidly large number to make it effectively unlimited.

The quote you gave suggests that companies are legally expected to maximise profit, but with caveats/nuance. It also highlights shareholder pressure towards the same goal.

If the claim is that fear of legal action doesn't technically count as 'legally required ", then sure, I used the wrong word. But as I said elsewhere, it doesn't change my point.

It's a consequence of the eBay vs Newmark ruling. Arguments against it are theoretical only and haven't been tested, and would be next to impossible to achieve with extant companies that don't already have advertised social priorities.

let’s be honest if it’s simply self preservation rather than some oft-cited but wrong assertion of the law.

For the purposes of my point in this discussion, the distinction doesn't matter. Whether the pressure to maximise profit over morality is a legal requirement or self preservation, the end result is inherent immorality

Al menos lo fue un oportunidad para practicar tu español!

Companies are inherently immoral. Whether the pressure that creates that reality is from this particular case or whether it comes from self preservatio is genuinely irrelevant to my point.

Taking away Musk won't make a company moral, because all publicly traded companies are immoral.

I don't know why this particular case gets people ignoring the topic at hand to argue about it whenever it's mentioned...

The screenshot you posted of PugJesus is unrelated to the voting situation, except in so far as he left the fediverse, but then came back to post that comment.

Thanks for that. I was always curious how they were able to survive staff change

I answered it elsewhere. If you want real discussion, respond to that.

I answered elsewhere in the conversation chain.

Yes, they are. Vocally so

I'm bilingual!

Like the European Union?

Got a new wheel and pedals, so back in to Gran Turismo!

What determines cash value in that case?

How does that work for the next generation of employees, the ones that weren't there from the beginning? Doesn't it mean privatisation as people retire and sell off their shares? And doesn't it mean dilution of value for new employees as their shares represent an ever smaller portion of the company?

How do they approach those issues?

Because stirring up hate against vulnerable minorities, by positioning them as a threat is a well tested and effective technique for the power hungry to gain and retain power. And it's effective, because it works by pulling people in and making all of the conversation about whether or not it's right to hate on the group they're targeting.

It's called remote deposit cheque fraud. It's a fake cheque. If you cash it, it will eventually get flagged as a a fake, and the bank will take the money back, even if you've already spent it or sent it to the scammer. And if you never send money to the scammer, they get nothing, but it also costs them nothing to make the attempt, because you're the one depositing the cheque and wearing the risk.