this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
225 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10181 readers
209 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They have a civil suit against him, but that kind of lawsuit is almost never successful (edit: at pinning liability onto the business owner - I'm saying liability will probably only fall to Twitter and not Musk personally /edit). Twitter is still a limited liability company, and now that it is privately owned its owners are free to run it into the ground - they don't have an obligation to shareholders.
Private businesses should be free to do this, but this was a publicly traded company turned private, so arguably there should be solid protections in law that make this wrong rather than the only option being a difficult civil lawsuit.
He was forced to follow through with the sale, the law is what protected Twitter's board of executives and shareholders from Musk not taking Twitter private.
After the business is private, the owner has no contractual obligation to take actions that benefit the company (unlike a CEO), he probably could have just shut Twitter down right after he bought it if he wanted to.
Idk how many Twitter employees held shares and how many shares they held but the shares were their legal protection against Musk taking Twitter private and running it into the ground.
I agree that we need changes that favor employee protections but it's a slippery slope as to who exactly is liable. Is it Musk? Twitter's BoD/shareholders? What exactly are they liable for? [Quick edit] Also, what would the penalties be and who would be the claimants?
Not so quick edit: I was thinking about something related to unrealized gains if someone was promised that the sale of Twitter would net them greater profits than keeping the company public but that really only applies if the asset(s) haven't already been sold. Hoping someone can add something more specific and credible, interesting to think about.
But Tesla isn't a private business. It's a public business that's traded on the stock exchange. That's a huge difference from the bird site.
Don't forget both Tesla and SpaceX ( who are heavily subsided by the American government also) employees was taken from their jobs and working on making more of a mess of Twitter
Private companies shouldn't be able to do that because it still has a negative impact on society. When a company implodes there are employees that have their lives ruined, suppliers that will now have problems of their own, which will lead to more lives ruined.
This view that if you aren't a shareholder you aren't an important stakeholder in a company is incredibly damaging to the social fabric.