4 ms·
Is this judge freezing SpaceX’s finances because Twitter won’t censor speech? Those are two completely different companies.
by scarab92 2y ago
Is this judge freezing SpaceX’s finances because Twitter won’t censor speech?
Those are two completely different companies.
- isodev 2y agoI don’t think the technicalities of incorporation and branding matter that much, it’s a “Elon Musk company”, unfortunately.
- andsoitis 2y agoThat’s thuggish, lawless behavior that undermines trust in Brazil’s business environment.
- viraptor 2y agoIt's possibly immoral? It's not really lawless if the local Supreme Court makes the decision.
- aaomidi 2y agoSome countries hold executives and figureheads responsible cross companies. This is actually a good thing. The SpaceX board can now decide if they want to keep someone like Elon up. If this cost is worth keeping Elon around then the free market has spoken :)
- mr_toad 2y agoMusk has nearly 80% voting control, and 40% equity. So he has more control over the board than they do over him.
- coffeebeqn 2y agoIt sounds like they’re freezing one companies payments due to the conduct of another company. Aren’t these two totally distinct legal entities? Whether they share a figurehead that doesn’t sound like a place I would want to start my business in ?
- cassianoleal 2y ago[flagged]
- Sirizarry 2y agoDid I miss something? How is musk using spaceX to evade justice?
- cassianoleal 2y agoMusk ceased Xitter operations in Brazil to evade justice.
- inemesitaffia 2y agoHe effectively controls both
- Sirizarry 2y agoRight. Many people control more than one company but how is musk using them to evade justice in this case in Brazil?
- isodev 2y agoI think it's normal to hold the CEO/high suits of a company ultimately accountable.
- Grum9 2y ago[dead]
- waihtis 2y agoisnt it funny how its completely obvious, yet the mere mention of this attracts a downvote brigade on this site.
- ivewonyoung 2y agoIf there is one place where technicalities should matter, that is in a court of law. SpaceX is only 40% owned by Musk.
- jltsiren 2y agoSometimes what matters is voting control, not ownership. If the same entity has >50% control in two companies, the companies may not be seen as fully independent before the law.
- andsoitis 2y agoThe fact that the same person owns both does not necessarily make them dependent on one another unless they are structured or operated in a way that intertwines their activities, finances, or management.
- isodev 2y agoI think the point is that if the same person is accountable for both, they're pretty much "intertwined".
- threatofrain 2y agoImagine we realized that Sundar Pichai also had a major position in Costco. So then we started to crash Costco to make Sundar Pichai direct Google policy. And the stakeholders in both companies who don't care and are just using this as retirement strategy are exposed. This has some major levels of "I want to direct a result so badly I'm going to start spilling harms all over the fucking place" kind of economic policy.
- isodev 2y agoThe idea is that responsibility is held by the CEO/owner in control. So if someone owns companies A and B and they do something illegal through company A, then it's logical to say that the CEO/owner of company B has committed something illegal (it's the same person!). I understand certain CEOs are elected by their respective boards, so it's then their decision to keep someone like this onboard. I'd also question the bigger picture - how come is a single person allowed to be at head of so many companies. Can they really be an effective CEO in this case?
- Rinzler89 2y agoWhy is them being separate companies relevant when they have the same ownership? If a judge goes after you they go after all your assets.
- Sparyjerry 2y agoThey don't have the same ownership though. Imagine if you own 70% of one company and 40% of another, and then the company you own 40% of is de-banked in a country because the company you own 70% of chose to stop doing business in that country. It's corruption at an unprecedented scale.
- Rinzler89 2y agoHow is this corruption just because countries have different rules and laws? Not every country has the same laws like the US/Angloshpere. Just because you don't like the ruling, and see it as unfair, doesn't automatically make it corruption. Did the judge break Brazilian laws? If yes, then we can say it's corruption. Not saying there isn't corruption in Brasil since there definitely is, I'm saying, is this particular ruling a case of corruption by Brasil's laws, yes or no?
- lobocinza 2y agoIt is not as simple as that. The law said that 2+2=4 and this was the accepted jurisprudence but now he is saying that 2+2=5 because he wants and he can do that because he is a supreme court judge and his decisions legally are the new accepted interpretation of the law. It's a flaw in Brazilian political that enables supreme court judges to virtually do whatever they want including legislating because they can pick any law and bend it. In a healthy system the supreme court would be challenged by the senate but this doesn't happen because most senators are corrupt and it is the supreme court who judge such cases.
- throwawayVDJDJD 2y ago[dead]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bozonaro 2y agolet me fix that for you: ..because Twitter won’t suppress criminal speech. (see if it makes sense now).