Hacker News Reader

Comment by ffggvv | Hacker News Reader

seems arbitrary whats considered a "bad actor".

maybe i think climate activist shareholders in energy companies are hostile / bad actors. Can i selectively dilute them out?

View on HN

Are they actively attempting a hostile takeover and the board thinks that they'll hurt the company? Then I think that'd be legal. Otherwise I don't see how you could make a legally defensible argument around diluting shareholders just because of their beliefs

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/02/investing/exxon-shareholders-...

in this case yes. wonder why they dont

They were elected to the board by shareholders. That's entirely different than a hostile takeover. You can't say "this is not in the interest of the shareholders" when the shareholders voted for it

then lets dilute the shareholders who voted for it as theyh are clearly idealogically driven and actively hostile to the company itself or its profitability

Yea... you're stretching this one

i dont see why. isnt that why they are saying elon is bad? because hes driving for free speech?

why is it okay if its one person, or a few people, but >n bad actors is fine?

Why do you think they dont?

>seems arbitrary whats considered a "bad actor".

Well, I guess if you’re a moral relativist that might be the case. I mean, why not burn the rest of the planet down for temporary profits? Why not enslave children in the Congo? It benefits the shareholders after all. How about murder and torture for hire? These decisions just seem so arbitrary. *shrug*

Reply on news.ycombinator.com