• reksas@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

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

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I think I read it like you did first, that fining him billions would be more than half of his net worth, which is wrong.

          But I think they mean that if you have billions, taking away half wouldnt change your life. I’d also say thats wrong for musk though because his money is tied up in companies. If he had to pay a cash fine of a huge amount, that likely would cause discomfort.

  • Skvlp@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

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

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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.

        • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          <…> your family’s bakery or your neighbor’s paralegal office.

          Are not subject to DSA. For the most part DSA only covers companies which have more than 45 million users in the European Union.

          • tekato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Whether it’s subject to DSA or not is irrelevant. The fact is that a company has to pay a fine to the government, whatever the infraction might be, and the government is trying to force something else, not the company in question, to pay the fine.

            • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              30 days ago

              It can’t be irrelevant as it’s the primary factor in deciding if the fine will even be brought. But ignoring that, there are clear limits. This would only apply to cases where corporate assets were used as personal ones. Hence, the limitation to private companies that have sole owners.

              And you talk like this is some novel never heard of approach. Personal liability applies to many actions under the law, just corporations managed to lobby it down for themselves. And your scaremongering of small family business becoming some governments targets are unfounded.

              • tekato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                30 days ago

                It can’t be irrelevant as it’s the primary factor in deciding if the fine will even be brought.

                Is DSA the only way for your company to get fined? If the answer is no, then yes, it’s irrelevant. Because while your company may not be eligible for a DSA fine, there are countless different situations which could leave you in the same spot.

                Personal liability applies to many actions under the law

                Yes, but none of those actions involve what is happening here. The DSA clearly states that the company may be fined up to 6% of its yearly revenue.

                your scaremongering of small family business becoming some governments targets are unfounded.

                What scaremongering? This is a valid concern. If Elon Musk’s rights as a company owner can be violated, who says yours can’t?

                • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  30 days ago

                  I love how you quoted all the parts expect the one that mentions where for this to even apply the person have to misuse corporate assets in the first place. Follow the law, and you are good in the EU, no matter which size business you are.

                  If Elon Musk’s rights as a company owner can be violated, who says yours can’t?

                  Here you go again. If they decide to go through with it, no Musk rights will be violated, there is extensive legal precedent in the EU that covers this.

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month 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.

              • tekato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                30 days ago

                You are going for the assets of the owner, which are unrelated to the company in question. Effectively devaluating companies that are not the infringing one, which directly affect the person’s net worth. This is no different than the government straight up taking money from your investments or 401K.

    • GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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.

    • toothpaste_sandwich@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

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

  • Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    30 days ago

    How about making them such a high percentage that it would genuinely impact their bottom line and not a measly amount calculated as “cost of doing business”

  • x00z@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

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

    woohoo!

  • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month 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.