4 ms·

I have a strong suspicion that, if a government tried to fine a company in billions, that company would simply leave the country forever. I'm not saying that th

by haolez 6y ago

I have a strong suspicion that, if a government tried to fine a company in billions, that company would simply leave the country forever. I'm not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing. It's just an intuition that I have.

junon 6y ago
And go... where?
- guram11 6y ago
  China seems like a place for big brother love
542458 6y ago
What do you mean? Companies have been fined multi-billion dollar amounts in the past. Withdrawing from the US market is simply not an option for many companies. I strongly suspect it wouldn’t be a realistic option for Facebook. That said, I think the parent comment that suggests “20-50B” fines is dramatically overestimating what it would take to promote more depositor behaviour here. Even much smaller fines with the threat of larger ones would likely be sufficient.
- buran77 6y ago
  On top of that, withdrawing from the country after breaking the law and being fined is like fleeing the country after being convicted of a crime. It's not a legal cover. The first move is usually to legally object to the fine if it's more than the cost of doing business, leading to years of back and forth. Look at the fine the EU imposed on Intel in 2009 which keeps getting contested and reexamined. Increasing the cost and friction for the ones trying to recoup the fine makes them more willing to negotiate a faster settlement (usually better deal for the company). It's a good bargaining chip for the company if they have very few assets under that jurisdiction or it's a market they can afford to lose. So the company pays some of the fine and then sees much stricter controls applied to them in particular, not via law but via the settlement. Finally the company is represented by a CEO and/or board and those are the people ultimately responsible for disregarding a court decision. There could be attempts to hold them responsible but the US is famous for protecting any CEO from prison time (inside or outside of US borders). The US has a history of refusing to extradite CEOs convicted simply because they can purchase their way out of any trouble, it's only a matter of price. So this last step is mostly symbolic, the CEO is convicted because justice has to be served in the accusing jurisdiction.
rhacker 6y ago
It would be pretty awesome if they left, and then we just blocked the entire IP address range with them.
IneffablePigeon 6y ago
To make a rubbish analogy, this is like arguing that making it illegal for teachers to do murders would make all the murderous teachers move. Great? We'll be left with the non murderous ones. I don't think there's much that would wholesale get Facebook to withdraw from a huge market like the US but if they did then competitors that did obey the new laws would take their place, as long as the entire business model wasn't completely defunct.
- ghoward 6y ago
  Rubbish? No, I liked your analogy. :)
downrightmike 6y ago
Cool, they can leave, let their competitors take over, or new entrants that will do the needful.

by haolez 6y ago

junon 6y ago

And go... where?

guram11 6y ago
China seems like a place for big brother love

542458 6y ago

What do you mean? Companies have been fined multi-billion dollar amounts in the past. Withdrawing from the US market is simply not an option for many companies. I strongly suspect it wouldn’t be a realistic option for Facebook. That said, I think the parent comment that suggests “20-50B” fines is dramatically overestimating what it would take to promote more depositor behaviour here. Even much smaller fines with the threat of larger ones would likely be sufficient.

buran77 6y ago
On top of that, withdrawing from the country after breaking the law and being fined is like fleeing the country after being convicted of a crime. It's not a legal cover. The first move is usually to legally object to the fine if it's more than the cost of doing business, leading to years of back and forth. Look at the fine the EU imposed on Intel in 2009 which keeps getting contested and reexamined. Increasing the cost and friction for the ones trying to recoup the fine makes them more willing to negotiate a faster settlement (usually better deal for the company). It's a good bargaining chip for the company if they have very few assets under that jurisdiction or it's a market they can afford to lose. So the company pays some of the fine and then sees much stricter controls applied to them in particular, not via law but via the settlement. Finally the company is represented by a CEO and/or board and those are the people ultimately responsible for disregarding a court decision. There could be attempts to hold them responsible but the US is famous for protecting any CEO from prison time (inside or outside of US borders). The US has a history of refusing to extradite CEOs convicted simply because they can purchase their way out of any trouble, it's only a matter of price. So this last step is mostly symbolic, the CEO is convicted because justice has to be served in the accusing jurisdiction.

rhacker 6y ago

It would be pretty awesome if they left, and then we just blocked the entire IP address range with them.

IneffablePigeon 6y ago

To make a rubbish analogy, this is like arguing that making it illegal for teachers to do murders would make all the murderous teachers move. Great? We'll be left with the non murderous ones. I don't think there's much that would wholesale get Facebook to withdraw from a huge market like the US but if they did then competitors that did obey the new laws would take their place, as long as the entire business model wasn't completely defunct.

ghoward 6y ago
Rubbish? No, I liked your analogy. :)

downrightmike 6y ago

Cool, they can leave, let their competitors take over, or new entrants that will do the needful.