138
submitted 6 months ago by lautan@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] null@slrpnk.net 4 points 6 months ago
[-] Kiosade@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago

Every time this view point is parroted, they either imply or outright state the company will be sued/break the law because they didn’t do their best to make money. Notice how they used words like “need”, “swearing an oath”, etc. I’ve seen it time and time again on here and on Reddit, it’s tiresome at this point. The companies are just greedy, and know they can pretty much get away with stuff like this, end of story.

[-] null@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The shareholders will oust the CEO who doesn't meet that need. No legal action required.

Maybe other people inaccurately say it is a law, but this is not an example of that. Especially since you said "FACTUALLY INCORRECT".

No, no incorrect facts were stated.

this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
138 points (97.9% liked)

Canada

7193 readers
360 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS