5 ms·
Whether true or not, IMHO this is not appropriate to publish or discuss publicly. It is his private matter and only tabloids would publicize that for their own
by greyman 18y ago
Whether true or not, IMHO this is not appropriate to publish or discuss publicly. It is his private matter and only tabloids would publicize that for their own gain.
- dangoldin 18y agoI can see both arguments. If you are a shareholder you are entitled to know anything that may impact your earnings. There are certain conditions people should be aware of, I am not too sure cancer is one of them. Imagine a politician was schizophrenic, wouldn't you want to know that before you voted for him?
- hugh 18y agoHe's not a politician and we don't have the opportunity to vote for him, so that's not much of an analogy. There are laws about how much a publicly-traded company needs to disclose, and I'm pretty sure that the health of its CEO isn't on the list. On the other hand, since it is kinda important to the future of the company and the industry, I can't see any point in making it a taboo topic for the rest of us to discuss.
- dangoldin 18y agoIf you are a shareholder you do get the opportunity to vote for him. I'm not familiar with the laws, just playing devil's advocate here. CEOs come and go so one should ideally be investing in the company, unfortunately that is not the case.
- byrneseyeview 18y agoThe principle public companies adhere to is that they should disclose anything 'material', meaning anything that, if it were widely known, would affect the stock price. Perhaps there are investors out there who think Apple would be worth $162 billion run by Gil Amelio or whoever, but I'm not one of them.
- jonknee 18y agoThe health of the CEO definitely has impacts on the company, especially so in Apple's case. The health of Apple is directly related to Jobs, much more so than any other large company I can think of. There was an article (can't remember where) about his first bout with cancer and the struggle he had to stay on the up and up with the SEC. Basically it's his private matter up until it would be likely to affect his performance. It's kind of a grey area, but keeping things disclosed is much better for the company. It's pretty depressing, but you'd have all sorts of insider trading problems with only a few people knowing you're sick. The people who would know (nurses, doctors, etc) would probably be fairly under the radar as far as that's concerned too.
- pg 18y agoI agree. It was an asshole move to write such a story. There's no actual news here. And despite all their high-sounding justifications for writing it (which make up about half the text), it's pretty clear what their motives are. Incidentally, according to the software I wrote to warn if the quality of stories on the front page goes down, this is the lowest scoring story ever to get this high on the front page.
- sant0sk1 18y agoPerhaps you could publish a list of similar stories that don't deserve front page status and display them to users when they create an account. Or arm the top 100 users with a -1 button and let them offset the tendency to front page bad (or non) stories.
- tokipin 18y agoor perhaps only being able to downvote a story once it reaches X points, so it doesn't get downvoted to hell but doesn't stay up too long either
- icey 18y agoPersonally, I think if you blocked fromedome's blog spamming, the overall quality of submissions would probably go up by a measurable amount.
- dangoldin 18y agoI have a sneaking suspicion that "fromedome" is actually "Dan Frommer" from Alley Insider. The names are just too similar but I have no way of either proving or disproving it.
- icey 18y agoI assume that's who it is as well; given every submission is to a Dan Frommer article. Which is why I'm saying he's just a blog spammer. Well, that along with the fact that he's never even bothered to comment once here.