3 ms·

I'm just not sure her complete lack of power to stand up to Musk is a defense. If a controversial rich guy offers you a CEO job that consists entirely of launde

I'm just not sure her complete lack of power to stand up to Musk is a defense. If a controversial rich guy offers you a CEO job that consists entirely of laundering his reputation by pretending his decisions are your own, you have a social responsibility not to take it. I'd be more sympathetic if she were some random person who couldn't otherwise dream of an executive level pay package, but she was the head of ads at NBC.

greedo 1y ago
“We have established what you are, madam. We are now merely haggling over the price.”
michaelt 1y ago
> If a controversial rich guy offers you a CEO job that consists entirely of laundering his reputation by pretending his decisions are your own, you have a social responsibility not to take it. I don't think you become the CEO of any major company by believing that "social responsibility" exists. Doesn't the job pretty much select for the type of person who thinks the world owes them $20+ million a year? With that said - it's dumb to blame the puppet for the acts of the ventriloquist.
- XorNot 1y ago
  "just following orders" has been well established as no defense, and is more relevant than usual.
  - BurningFrog 1y ago
    In a genocide context, sure. I don't think that applies here.
    - sorokod 1y ago
      In general "just following orders" implies being morally bankrupt.
    - chgs 1y ago
      It’s Facebook that causes genocide, not Twitter. Funny how the left gives sick a far easier pass.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Lu2025 1y ago
> a social responsibility not to take it She was paid $6M a year + undisclosed stock package. A lot of people will set aside their morals for this amount of money.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
  She was making $4M at NBC! Again, I can imagine and be sympathetic towards a story where a billionaire gives you otherwise unimaginable wealth if only you'll sit in a comfy CEO office while they run the company around you. That isn't what happened here, and not because of some tactical mistake by Musk - her experience and connections as an ads executive for a major media company were at least a big part of why Musk wanted her, if not the entirety of it.

greedo 1y ago

“We have established what you are, madam. We are now merely haggling over the price.”

michaelt 1y ago

> If a controversial rich guy offers you a CEO job that consists entirely of laundering his reputation by pretending his decisions are your own, you have a social responsibility not to take it. I don't think you become the CEO of any major company by believing that "social responsibility" exists. Doesn't the job pretty much select for the type of person who thinks the world owes them $20+ million a year? With that said - it's dumb to blame the puppet for the acts of the ventriloquist.

XorNot 1y ago
"just following orders" has been well established as no defense, and is more relevant than usual.
- BurningFrog 1y ago
  In a genocide context, sure. I don't think that applies here.
  - sorokod 1y ago
    In general "just following orders" implies being morally bankrupt.
  - chgs 1y ago
    It’s Facebook that causes genocide, not Twitter. Funny how the left gives sick a far easier pass.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Lu2025 1y ago

> a social responsibility not to take it She was paid $6M a year + undisclosed stock package. A lot of people will set aside their morals for this amount of money.

SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
She was making $4M at NBC! Again, I can imagine and be sympathetic towards a story where a billionaire gives you otherwise unimaginable wealth if only you'll sit in a comfy CEO office while they run the company around you. That isn't what happened here, and not because of some tactical mistake by Musk - her experience and connections as an ads executive for a major media company were at least a big part of why Musk wanted her, if not the entirety of it.