4 ms·

If there is one place where technicalities should matter, that is in a court of law. SpaceX is only 40% owned by Musk.

jltsiren 2y ago
Sometimes 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    I think the point is that if the same person is accountable for both, they're pretty much "intertwined".
    - threatofrain 2y ago
      Imagine 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 ago
        The 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?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
pjerem 2y ago
Well, he is still the CEO, the CTO and Chairman. In a lot of countries, executives (which Elon is clearly the top most here) have personal legal responsibilities. Also, if I understand correctly, Musk is playing the game of having no legal entity in Brazil but still to technically stay present in the country (and probably make business but I’m unsure). IDK if making him pay with another of its companies is legal but in that precise situation, it does feel pretty moral. On the substance of the case of this censorship conflict, I have not enough information to make my judgment but still, Brazil is a sovereign country with its laws and Twitter have no natural right to be present in Brazil while still not respecting the law.

Sometimes 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 ago
The 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 ago
  I think the point is that if the same person is accountable for both, they're pretty much "intertwined".
  - threatofrain 2y ago
    Imagine 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 ago
      The 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?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

pjerem 2y ago

Well, he is still the CEO, the CTO and Chairman. In a lot of countries, executives (which Elon is clearly the top most here) have personal legal responsibilities. Also, if I understand correctly, Musk is playing the game of having no legal entity in Brazil but still to technically stay present in the country (and probably make business but I’m unsure). IDK if making him pay with another of its companies is legal but in that precise situation, it does feel pretty moral. On the substance of the case of this censorship conflict, I have not enough information to make my judgment but still, Brazil is a sovereign country with its laws and Twitter have no natural right to be present in Brazil while still not respecting the law.