4 ms·

Jail time is probably the only suitable enough deterrent for adtech nightmares. Fines are just treated as a cost of doing business expense, and doesn't directly

Jail time is probably the only suitable enough deterrent for adtech nightmares. Fines are just treated as a cost of doing business expense, and doesn't directly even hurt the terrible people making these decisions. When someone commits a wrong, the punishment is in part based on the amount of harm. You might feel that adtech causes small harms, if you look at harm against an individual, but adtech folks harm billions of people, every single day. If you're Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, or Sergey Brin, no fine is large enough to make you regret your life choices. The only way to punish billionaires who get rich off harming others is to take away their time/freedom, the one thing they can't just buy back. As long as corporate CEOs can't get jailed, crime absolutely pays in this country.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ViViDboarder 6y ago
Exactly. Facebook and Google have been fined in the past and it’s never amounted to anything for them. When they make more Money from engaging in bad behavior than the fine costs, it’s a law they’d be stupid not to break.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Then make the fines double what they made from it.
drstewart 6y ago
Most studies pretty clearly show that harsher punishments are not an effective deterrent.
- bitlevel 6y ago
  That may be, but a threat of jail hanging over a director or CEO may make them take the correct course of action - effectively becoming the deterrent.
  - drstewart 6y ago
    It won't. Again, this is well studied. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment/201804/why-punishment-doesnt-reduce-crime https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment...
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      Your source doesn't actually apply well here. It talks about things like substance abuse and addiction being reasons that criminals don't act rationally to punishment as a deterrent. For white collar crime, there's a very different set of circumstances in play. Crime is often just a business decision based on risk and reward. Raise the risk and the reward becomes less worth going for.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  So the alternative is... we don't punish them at all? Bear in mind, CEOs face no real penalty for criminal activity.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > Most studies pretty clearly show that harsher punishments are not an effective deterrent. It doesn't need to be harsh, 3 days in jail with a review in six months to see if they've fixed it. Then an additional 3 days in jail. Pretty much any jail time would be adequate for typical C-Level execs. Also, not "Raped in the ass" prison time, just a mellow 3 days to contemplate their shiftiness locked in a comfortable room.
- takeda 6y ago
  This refers to the "normal" people not businesses or rich execs. Giving them for example 20 years instead of 5 doesn't change much, because 5 is already a lot. If someone does crime, because of poverty, being mentally ill, or because of addiction no jail time will be a strong enough deterrent. If businesses actually would have fines that significantly hurt the business (and not being able to deduct it from taxes, if they were unable to pay, they would have to close down) would absolutely help and would change the calculation from fine being a cost of doing the business to a punishment for illegal behavior. Having executives be personally responsible for decisions and go to a real jail would be even a stronger motivator. The current problem is that there's no real deterrent.
jjeaff 6y ago
No amount of fines would make a difference? I beg to differ. Make the fines high enough, bill them to the executives personally, I guarantee it will make a difference. A large enough fine could literally take the company and thus their power away from them. A large enough fine could literally bankrupt the company. The problem is simply that the fines aren't big enough.
devdas 6y ago
That just means you need fines proportionate to wealth, not fixed numbers. A truly useful penalty would be to forbid them from owning any capital (directly, or indirectly like via a trust or index funds).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ViViDboarder 6y ago

Exactly. Facebook and Google have been fined in the past and it’s never amounted to anything for them. When they make more Money from engaging in bad behavior than the fine costs, it’s a law they’d be stupid not to break.

jjeaff 6y ago
Then make the fines double what they made from it.

drstewart 6y ago

Most studies pretty clearly show that harsher punishments are not an effective deterrent.

bitlevel 6y ago
That may be, but a threat of jail hanging over a director or CEO may make them take the correct course of action - effectively becoming the deterrent.
- drstewart 6y ago
  It won't. Again, this is well studied. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment/201804/why-punishment-doesnt-reduce-crime https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment...
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Your source doesn't actually apply well here. It talks about things like substance abuse and addiction being reasons that criminals don't act rationally to punishment as a deterrent. For white collar crime, there's a very different set of circumstances in play. Crime is often just a business decision based on risk and reward. Raise the risk and the reward becomes less worth going for.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
So the alternative is... we don't punish them at all? Bear in mind, CEOs face no real penalty for criminal activity.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> Most studies pretty clearly show that harsher punishments are not an effective deterrent. It doesn't need to be harsh, 3 days in jail with a review in six months to see if they've fixed it. Then an additional 3 days in jail. Pretty much any jail time would be adequate for typical C-Level execs. Also, not "Raped in the ass" prison time, just a mellow 3 days to contemplate their shiftiness locked in a comfortable room.
takeda 6y ago
This refers to the "normal" people not businesses or rich execs. Giving them for example 20 years instead of 5 doesn't change much, because 5 is already a lot. If someone does crime, because of poverty, being mentally ill, or because of addiction no jail time will be a strong enough deterrent. If businesses actually would have fines that significantly hurt the business (and not being able to deduct it from taxes, if they were unable to pay, they would have to close down) would absolutely help and would change the calculation from fine being a cost of doing the business to a punishment for illegal behavior. Having executives be personally responsible for decisions and go to a real jail would be even a stronger motivator. The current problem is that there's no real deterrent.

jjeaff 6y ago

No amount of fines would make a difference? I beg to differ. Make the fines high enough, bill them to the executives personally, I guarantee it will make a difference. A large enough fine could literally take the company and thus their power away from them. A large enough fine could literally bankrupt the company. The problem is simply that the fines aren't big enough.

devdas 6y ago

That just means you need fines proportionate to wealth, not fixed numbers. A truly useful penalty would be to forbid them from owning any capital (directly, or indirectly like via a trust or index funds).