4 ms·
Does the bill give powers to easily seize the domain of the offending organization? One reason I ask is that a company might flirt with the risk having an exec
by LinuxBender 5y ago
Does the bill give powers to easily seize the domain of the offending organization? One reason I ask is that a company might flirt with the risk having an executive locked up but they most certainly will not risk the potential revenue loss of their domain being parked on a static government page.
A company can throw a new CEO under the bus any time. The board might even use that as a passive aggressive tool to dump their CEO. There will always be a person eager and available to fill the role.
- smt88 5y agoThey would need cooperation from ICANN and likely US law enforcement. Most of the original top-level domains are essentially under US control.
- LinuxBender 5y agoThat is my understanding as well. One reason I ask is that such laws would require cooperation between governments and agreements ahead of times around processes and procedures. I am curious if such agreements exist and to what extent such processes are in place.
- chmod775 5y agoYou give legislators too much credit. Laws are written all the time without thought about enforceability.
- vba616 5y agoSomething I've not heard anything about from an authoritative source - in the US, I've noticed laws being written with a preface that makes a political statement about what the law is, does, and why, and it is not at all consistent with the rest of it, which defines terms carefully. It seems to be a trick to send a chosen message to the media without having any effect on the court system. So I wonder if that could account for the "unenforceability" of some laws - basically what the law is reported as being, is just a fiction for the public, so the courts don't even engage with it.
- LinuxBender 5y agoI think you're right. This may be political posturing to appease someone.
- vlovich123 5y agoZuck isn’t just a regular CEO. He also has majority voting control of the company due to having irrevocable proxy voting rights on Moscovitz’s and Parker’s shares. He is, for all intents and purposes, Facebook/Meta, and it seems unlikely he’d throw himself under the bus.
- LinuxBender 5y agoThat's a good point. I am curious if have been any cases where a majority shareholder has been locked up and run their business from prison.