4 ms·

Executives have, by definition, cobtrol over everything inside their company.

kelnos 2y ago
That's not even a little bit true. Even the CEO is at the mercy of their board, and their shareholders. Other CxO positions are subservient to the CEO. Often VPs are considered executives, and they certainly don't have control over everything inside their company. If Twitter/X were to hire a rep in Brazil, regardless of the title they're given, that rep would have little to no power over the moderation choices of the parent company.
- 123pie123 2y ago
  Can you explain who has control over a company then?
  - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
    There is no one entity who has control. It is a combination of the CEO, shareholders, governments, employees, and the customers.
    - presentation 2y ago
      This is true, but following this logic you can’t hold anyone responsible for any negative externalities of their business since nobody can solely be in control. That’s not the world I want to encourage.
      - yazzku 2y ago
        "externalities" is precisely the kind of word used by those who evade responsibility.
        ziml77 2y ago
        They would never use that word because it acknowledges that there are impacts that aren't accounted for in the costs to them.
- flakeoil 2y ago
  In the US the CEO is often also the chairman of the board so they are accountable to themselves. Which is kind of weird and illegal in many countries, but in the US it is almost the norm.
  - signatoremo 2y ago
    Define “often”. Did you know that Elon isn’t chairman of the board of Tesla? Also no, chairman isn’t only accountable to themselves. Where did you read that? Investor having seats on board is so they can have a voice in the direction of the business. Activists investors often try to have a minority stake and a board member so they can force changes at the company -[0]. A recent example is Elliott’s effort at Southwest Airlines -[1] [0] - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/activist-investor.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/activist-investor.asp [1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/elliott-breaks-down-southwest-ownership-new-regulatory-filing-2024-08-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/elliott-b...
    - flakeoil 2y ago
      Often as in much more than 50% of the time for fortune 500 companies. If the CEO and the Chairman of the Board is the same person then there is sort of a conflict of interest. The Board is there to oversee the work of the CEO. The board is headed by the Chairman of the Board. Thus, if the CEO and the Chairman is the same person, then the CEO is accountable to himself. Not sure why you include investors all of a sudden, as I didn't mention about that. I have no issue with shareholders having a seat on the board.
- tfourb 2y ago
  That would be a choice, not a necessity. Musk could choose to furnish the Brazil office of Twitter/X with the necessary resources to do content moderation to conform with local law. He chooses not to, with predictable consequences in terms of legal liability for any local representative.

That's not even a little bit true. Even the CEO is at the mercy of their board, and their shareholders. Other CxO positions are subservient to the CEO. Often VPs are considered executives, and they certainly don't have control over everything inside their company. If Twitter/X were to hire a rep in Brazil, regardless of the title they're given, that rep would have little to no power over the moderation choices of the parent company.

123pie123 2y ago
Can you explain who has control over a company then?
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  There is no one entity who has control. It is a combination of the CEO, shareholders, governments, employees, and the customers.
  - presentation 2y ago
    This is true, but following this logic you can’t hold anyone responsible for any negative externalities of their business since nobody can solely be in control. That’s not the world I want to encourage.
    - yazzku 2y ago
      "externalities" is precisely the kind of word used by those who evade responsibility.
      - ziml77 2y ago
        They would never use that word because it acknowledges that there are impacts that aren't accounted for in the costs to them.
flakeoil 2y ago
In the US the CEO is often also the chairman of the board so they are accountable to themselves. Which is kind of weird and illegal in many countries, but in the US it is almost the norm.
- signatoremo 2y ago
  Define “often”. Did you know that Elon isn’t chairman of the board of Tesla? Also no, chairman isn’t only accountable to themselves. Where did you read that? Investor having seats on board is so they can have a voice in the direction of the business. Activists investors often try to have a minority stake and a board member so they can force changes at the company -[0]. A recent example is Elliott’s effort at Southwest Airlines -[1] [0] - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/activist-investor.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/activist-investor.asp [1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/elliott-breaks-down-southwest-ownership-new-regulatory-filing-2024-08-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/elliott-b...
  - flakeoil 2y ago
    Often as in much more than 50% of the time for fortune 500 companies. If the CEO and the Chairman of the Board is the same person then there is sort of a conflict of interest. The Board is there to oversee the work of the CEO. The board is headed by the Chairman of the Board. Thus, if the CEO and the Chairman is the same person, then the CEO is accountable to himself. Not sure why you include investors all of a sudden, as I didn't mention about that. I have no issue with shareholders having a seat on the board.
tfourb 2y ago
That would be a choice, not a necessity. Musk could choose to furnish the Brazil office of Twitter/X with the necessary resources to do content moderation to conform with local law. He chooses not to, with predictable consequences in terms of legal liability for any local representative.