3 ms·

The burden of proof needed to break up a company should always be lower than that needed to execute or incarcerate a human for life. People regularly have their

The burden of proof needed to break up a company should always be lower than that needed to execute or incarcerate a human for life. People regularly have their freedom taken away for much less impactful crimes. If our values are that companies are sub-human (as they should be) then we should at least treat them equally under the law, not better. The individuals making these decisions are almost certainly shielded from liability, and on top of that the fractional damage fines do to large companies tends to be a rounding error relative to profits. Companies should be fined comparable fractions of their income as humans, yet we persist in special treatment for them. Breaking up facebook is the only corrective action left with any teeth.

mrandish 6y ago
> The burden of proof needed to break up a company should always be lower than that needed to execute or incarcerate a human for life. This a fair point that got me thinking. On first pass, I broadly agree but as I unwound it more I realized there are some second-order downstream consequences to at least consider in the calculus balancing net harms. My other realization was that my own analogy to criminal sentencing was not really a good fit to this context. Trying to benchmark two such different things in relation to each other is hard. Especially when moral intuition is involved. I'll concede the point and plead it down to simply supporting the statement that going for higher penalties or more invasive remedies raises the bar for prosecutors within the same legal domain. > If our values are that companies are sub-human (as they should be) Companies certainly aren't people. But they are created by people, owned by people, support people's lives, serve people. It's obvious but worth mentioning that FB isn't just a huge company, it's the center of an entire ecosystem of companies all made of people and it serves a large fraction of the entire planet. The scale alone makes it exceptional in how far-reaching the consequences are, both in the harm it can do (to privacy, etc) and how many people it seizing it can impact (employment, economics). > The individuals making these decisions are almost certainly shielded from liability, and on top of that the fractional damage fines do to large companies tends to be a rounding error relative to profits. Companies should be fined comparable fractions of their income as humans, yet we persist in special treatment for them. Breaking up facebook is the only corrective action left with any teeth. I feel like each of these remaining points are things where I may agree that element of the system needs fixing (fine scaling, officer indemnification, etc) but those being broken and notable examples of fat cats "getting away with it" (along with the feelings of moral outrage they evoke) don't necessarily support leaping to breaking up this company, in this unique context, based on this evidence. > Breaking up facebook is the only corrective action left with any teeth. If the goal is corrective more than punishment/deterrence, the I think there are probably some other options at least worth exploring. Some legal analysts have already suggested that going for a break up is a tactical first move by prosecutors to force a negotiated settlement that's less than prosecutors are now demanding but much more than Facebook is now willing to do. Thanks for the thoughtful response!

mrandish 6y ago

> The burden of proof needed to break up a company should always be lower than that needed to execute or incarcerate a human for life. This a fair point that got me thinking. On first pass, I broadly agree but as I unwound it more I realized there are some second-order downstream consequences to at least consider in the calculus balancing net harms. My other realization was that my own analogy to criminal sentencing was not really a good fit to this context. Trying to benchmark two such different things in relation to each other is hard. Especially when moral intuition is involved. I'll concede the point and plead it down to simply supporting the statement that going for higher penalties or more invasive remedies raises the bar for prosecutors within the same legal domain. > If our values are that companies are sub-human (as they should be) Companies certainly aren't people. But they are created by people, owned by people, support people's lives, serve people. It's obvious but worth mentioning that FB isn't just a huge company, it's the center of an entire ecosystem of companies all made of people and it serves a large fraction of the entire planet. The scale alone makes it exceptional in how far-reaching the consequences are, both in the harm it can do (to privacy, etc) and how many people it seizing it can impact (employment, economics). > The individuals making these decisions are almost certainly shielded from liability, and on top of that the fractional damage fines do to large companies tends to be a rounding error relative to profits. Companies should be fined comparable fractions of their income as humans, yet we persist in special treatment for them. Breaking up facebook is the only corrective action left with any teeth. I feel like each of these remaining points are things where I may agree that element of the system needs fixing (fine scaling, officer indemnification, etc) but those being broken and notable examples of fat cats "getting away with it" (along with the feelings of moral outrage they evoke) don't necessarily support leaping to breaking up this company, in this unique context, based on this evidence. > Breaking up facebook is the only corrective action left with any teeth. If the goal is corrective more than punishment/deterrence, the I think there are probably some other options at least worth exploring. Some legal analysts have already suggested that going for a break up is a tactical first move by prosecutors to force a negotiated settlement that's less than prosecutors are now demanding but much more than Facebook is now willing to do. Thanks for the thoughtful response!