443

EU considers calculating X fines by including revenue from Musk’s other firms (arstechnica.com)

submitted 11 hours ago by Xatolos@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 3 points 8 minutes ago

Less considering more doing

[-] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 26 points 2 hours ago

Do it. The crimes are almost entirely by him personally, and had unprecedented damage. He should be responsible with all his money - a Twitter-sized blow would be a slap on the wrist as the platform is worth just $5B or thereabouts.

[-] x00z@lemmy.world 8 points 2 hours ago

It's finally time to hold the people hiding behind the companies accountable!!

woohoo!

[-] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 1 hour ago

Is the EU just going to bet that none of its companies ever have to do business outside of the EU?

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 9 points 3 hours ago

break his ability to finance the orange felon

[-] pandapoo@sh.itjust.works 34 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

That would be extra funny, considering at least some motivation behind his initially bidding on Twitter, was to cash out his absurdly overvalued Tesla stock, without causing it to crash.

Clearly he signed that initial Delaware contract while he was still riding high on mania, but still, his desire to convert his overpriced Tesla stock played no small part. The remaining rationale was mostly drug-induced psychosis, but I digress.

So, calculating fines based on his overpriced assets, forcing him to sell off a bunch of those shitty assets, and risking their price falling closer to their true worth, would be hilarious.

It's also why I am skeptical that they'll do it, or at least I'm skeptical they'll do it in a way that would trigger a domino effect, or market contagion.

[-] reksas@sopuli.xyz 67 points 10 hours ago

fine the fucker for 20% of his net "worth", that should give him some pause

[+] DancingBear@midwest.social -19 points 6 hours ago

Not really billions is beyond being halved

[-] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 4 hours ago

Hi I'm a mathematician.

What's the actual fuck are you talking about?

[-] gedhrel@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

I'm a mathematician too. They're probably speaking from an intuitive grasp of utility.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

While I disagree that "billions is beyond being halved", there is some truth to the idea that numbers can get so big that halving doesn't make much difference. That seems very very counter-intuitive, so I'll try to briefly explain.

Consider (10^10 + 2). That's 10000000000+2. I think it's fair to say that the +2 doesn't make a lot of difference. It's still approximately 10^10.

So then, consider 10^(10^10)×100. That's a huge number, too big to type here, then multiplied by 100. So the result is 100 times bigger than the huge number. But... writing it down we see this:

10^(10^10)×100 = 10^(10^10+2) ≈ 10^(10^10).

So although ×100 does make it one hundred times bigger... that just doesn't really make a lot of difference to a number as big as that one. As numbers get bigger and bigger, they start to take on properties a bit like 'infinity'. Addition stops being important, then multiplication, then for even bigger numbers exponentiation doesn't huge much of an impact either.

Mathematically, I think this is really cool and interesting. But I don't think 1 billion is that big. 10^9 is big enough that +2 doesn't matter much, but not so big that ×2 doesn't matter.

[edit] (I'm struggling to get the nested powers to look right... So hopefully my meaning is clear enough anyway.)

[-] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Interesting concept, thank you!

Have you ever played idle champions of the forgotten realms? At some point you start to get this feeling.

[-] Drusenija@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago

I think they're just saying that if you're a multi billionaire and get a 50% net worth fine, you're still a billionaire once it's done.

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 3 points 3 hours ago

division has no power here old man!

[-] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 1 points 3 hours ago

They're not talking about Maths. They're talking about wealth.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 79 points 11 hours ago

WOW. That's interesting. Kinda brilliant if it works. Wouldn't work in the US, unfortunately.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 59 points 10 hours ago

It's the same thing Brazil did.

He's rich enough that he's kind of a parent corporation by himself, so:

X was previously accused of violating the Digital Services Act (DSA), which could result in fines of up to 6 percent of total worldwide annual turnover. That fine would be levied on the "provider" of X, which could be defined to include other Musk-led firms.

But yeah, American law has been limited so the buck stops at the company which declares bankruptcy and the money starts a new company.

Not everyone else system is as shitty

[-] mostdubious@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

so important to realize this. laws are just what this group of people said. another group of people say they're this. in the end, what they do is all that matters. it's almost like you could just skip them, grab him by the collar, and shake him down to the tune of 'whatever it takes to make you sit down, shut up, and stop your BS'.

[-] Zannsolo@lemmy.world 17 points 9 hours ago

I mean he is leveraging his Tesla stock

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

For twitter, he actually isn't. That was the original plan, but he moved away from it and got additional external financing, and then put up more cash himself by selling additional Tesla stock.

Not sure about boring company / neuralink.

[+] skvlp@lemm.ee -46 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

It’s easy to support when Elon is the recipient, but is this a good precedent to set?

[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 4 hours ago

Yes. Next question.

[-] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 19 points 5 hours ago

Absolutely and without question yes

[-] GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 86 points 10 hours ago

Unironically, yes. You shouldn't be able to shield your actions under a different corporate umbrella.

"Oh, guess we can't fine them much because Twitter is a money pit, so they'll get to continue breaking the law for cheap"

Nah, make the fine off of his entire net worth, make him cash in some of that stock so he can finally pay taxes and fines. Make it hurt enough for him to consider not breaking the laws of countries he wants to do business in.

[+] tekato@lemmy.world -8 points 8 hours ago

Sounds good in principle, but isn't the one of the main purposes of creating an LLC or Corporation to shield your personal assets from the company's finances? Everyone cheers for these policies until you're the one they're coming for. I hope you're as cheerful when the government wipes your personal bank account as consequence of your company's affairs.

[-] Zorque@lemmy.world 27 points 7 hours ago

The problem is if we give major companies a way out, on the off chance that it might have a benefit for the little guy... those major companies end up stepping on the little guy anyway.

So why let them shield themselves from the consequences of their action?

[-] tekato@lemmy.world -4 points 7 hours ago

There’s no need to give a company a “way out”. The government can be as harsh as it wants to be within the limits of the law. But as soon as you start targeting the owner when he is supposed to be financially protected by the law, there are worse consequences in the long term. No matter how much they personally fine Elon, he has infinite money, this doesn’t really hurt him and I doubt he cares since he seems more focused in helping Trump win than helping X (or himself) succeed.

[-] GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 6 hours ago

Gotta ask, what would you propose that would curb Elon from willfully committing crimes as he is?

He continues to do so because he's proven the system is broken as soon as someone is sufficiently wealthy. He fights the charges, then when that runs out he fights the amounts, and even when he does get his comeuppance to the tune of 44 billion, he's an even bigger brat cause he finally got stood up to. Do you think that there's a way to systematically even the playing field?

[-] tekato@lemmy.world -3 points 6 hours ago

Gotta ask, what would you propose that would curb Elon from willfully committing crimes as he is?

I’m not a lawmaker so I don’t know. And it hasn’t been dealt with by those who are because it’s not an easy decision. But the solution can’t possibly be allowing governments to damage the owner’s personal finances for choices at the company level. Truth is you can’t open this road for Elon Musk and never use it again, because that’s never how it goes down. If this is allowed to happen, more people will be unwilling to open businesses because the only protection that they’re supposed to have can be completely ignored by the government. Governments are as predatory as mega corporations, and neither can be given too much power. This takes away power from the companies and gives it to the government, not the average citizen.

Do you think that there's a way to systematically even the playing field?

I don’t know, and nobody else knows.

[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

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.

[-] tekato@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

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.

[-] GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 hours ago

I don't think I quite agree about governments being predatory by nature. I think they can be, have been in the past, and safeguards and checks and balances need to be there to prevent it. But generally a democratically elected government is beneficial, albeit flawed. Often reactive rather than proactive, but not commonly bloodthirsty. I mean, they often can't even jail executives for criminal decisions or negligence.

In Elon's case, I do believe governments around the world are going to have to adapt to protect their citizens from popular, but provably false and dangerous propaganda, as well as protect their privacy in the EU's case.

Also, I agree, we both aren't lawmakers. So for now I will just have to cheer any attempt at adaptation, and hope that their solution is functional and passes scrutiny.

[-] tekato@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

I don't think I quite agree about governments being predatory by nature.

Well, if you look at the history you might change your mind. If you look at the Top 10 Most Politically Influential Countries, by US News, you will notice that out of the 10, at least half cannot be considered "beneficial".

I hope we can agree that Russia (1) and China (3) are predatory. But in case you don't believe so:
- Russia: I guess you can look at the recent invasion of Ukraine, or the arrest of Navalny for "extremism", or the arrest of Maria Ponomarenko for speaking against the war in Ukraine.
- China: I shouldn't need to link anything, but at least I'll point to Chen Pinlin arrested for the crime of making a documentary.
We have the UAE (9) and Saudi Arabia (7), who will literally kill you for the crime of being a journalist [SA], being gay [SA], and arrest you for speaking against them [UAE]
Israel (5): I guess it depends on where you stand with the current Israel-Hamas situation. But I wouldn't say Israel has an utopian government.
Iran (10): From numerous results from a quick Google search, I can point to Pakhshan Azizi being sentenced to death for her humanitarian work.

That's 6/10 of the most influential governments being provably predatory against their own citizens.

I mean, they often can’t even jail executives for criminal decisions or negligence.

That's one of the unfortunate advantages of creating companies, but I believe such protections are needed for the average citizen who wants to start their own business. Maybe you disagree.

In Elon’s case, I do believe governments around the world are going to have to adapt to protect their citizens from popular, but provably false and dangerous propaganda, as well as protect their privacy in the EU’s case.

If you must "protect" your citizens at all cost from misinformation being spread on X, then you can do what Brazil did, and just force all ISPs to block traffic to it, then fine thousands of dollars to those who get caught using a VPN to access it. This is also extremely predatory (against X and Brazil citizens), but nobody cared for some reason.

Also, I agree, we both aren’t lawmakers. So for now I will just have to cheer any attempt at adaptation, and hope that their solution is functional and passes scrutiny.

Hopefully it can be solved in a way that doesn't harm small businesses.

[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 8 points 7 hours ago

isn't the one of the main purposes of creating an LLC or Corporation to shield your personal assets from the company's finances?

It is but it is not written in stone for all eternity. If people are abusing this law, like Musk, then it gets amended or rewritten.

[-] tekato@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

I agree. They can try to change the laws, and if the majority of those with voting powers agree on a way to handle these cases while doing more good than harm, I’m sure few would complain.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 11 points 8 hours ago

Shipping companies setup separate LLC's for their ships so of they have an accident the ship goes bankrupt and they keep their profits shielded.. that kind of stuff is bullshit

[-] tekato@lemmy.world -2 points 8 hours ago

Yes. Like every system, there are those who abuse it. But you must be careful so that while trying to punish those abusers, you don't end up creating avenues to also punish those who don't abuse the system, but simply make a mistake. This sets a precedent so that the government can target the assets of the owner of the company if they're not satisfied the company punishment, which doesn't sound as cool when the company in question is your family's bakery or your neighbor's paralegal office.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

I don't know if this will be a big issue for small businesses. But in any case where there is construction of multiple companies in a structure to separate profits and losses for fuckery with taxes and fines, I think I would also be OK with that whole structure being seen as one entity and treated as such.

The billionaire class however is uniquely adept at this kind of fuckery and wield an ungodly level of power, only surpassed by governments. And I think governments need to be careful that these assholes don't get too much power.. so it's high time they take them down a peg.. or 10.

[-] tekato@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

It will be an issue because your average citizen won’t be so willing to start a new business if they know the government can come after their personal funds as a consequence of something that was done at the company level.

[-] Smc87@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 6 hours ago

Shit take. Get judged by peers

[-] tekato@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Everyone thanks you for your helpful insight into this topic.

[-] Smc87@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 22 minutes ago

You can subscribe to

[-] toothpaste_sandwich@feddit.nl 25 points 10 hours ago

Why not? Which person owning multiple companies would be disadvantaged in a way that could be considered unfair in this way?

this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024

443 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

58698 readers

4073 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