3 ms·
I think the difference here is that it was a family company (providing a "singular" benefiting target to vilify and pursue) and the number of aggrieved parties.
by ethbr0 3y ago
I think the difference here is that it was a family company (providing a "singular" benefiting target to vilify and pursue) and the number of aggrieved parties.
If it were instead 1,000 different shareholders and corporate officers, I think the public would have lost interest.
- dylan604 3y agoI think this is downplaying the effect of the devastation their actions have caused. Pretty much everyone knows someone impacted by their products. As the degrees of separation increases, so does the number of people brought into the world of addiction. personally, i know many people that have opiate addictions, and not one of them was introduced to them from buying them on the street or were addicts of anything prior.