Hacker News Reader

Comment by amelius | Hacker News Reader

Ok, now can we also have a three-strikes policy please, with prison sentences. Otherwise this is just the cost of doing business.

View on HN

Agreed. Megacorps where noone has actual honest skin in the game and every unethical decision can be paved over with money are bad news for most of us.

How would that work? Infraction > Officers quit; new set of officers > infraction > officers quit; new set of officers…

Almost 3bn euros is one hell of a cost of business though, that's approximately a euro for every 2.5 people on the planet

Google has been serving a lot of ads over the years.

Until the rich people who green light things like this go to jail it will literally never stop. Someone, somewhere needs to be responsible for policies that break the law and they need to go to jail.

My company has a committee that votes on these kinds of things.

You as a prosecutor, who will you take to jail? whole committee? Those who voted in-favour? Somebody who brought the proposal? Only CEO?

Each of these decisions if done consistently over time, would invoke changes in companies, to get some fall-guys in right places.

For usual corporate crimes: Usually CEO and/or a few senior individuals who you could prove was part of a conspiracy and aware it was a crime, through emails, chat logs etc.

The very easy and obvious answer is the people who are responsible. If there is a committee then the obvious answer is the people who voted for it. It's not hard. It's like saying what if I break the law but I do it with three other people, who goes to jail? The obvious answer is everyone who broke the law goes to jail. If a fifth person did not participate and said you should not break the law, the very obvious answer is the person who did not participate and who did not break the law does not go to jail. It's not complicated at all.

Huh? Google generated 350B in revenues in 2024...

3B is pocket change to them

It's 15% of their yearly net profit in the region. Not even revenue.

3bn sounds like a lot because we haven't gotten used to the absurd profit levels that these monstrosities have reached.

I actually do think that's significant, if someone took 15% of your yearly earnings this year that would definitely be noticed. I'm not saying it's the right amount, I'm saying that is enough to be felt and therefore isn't the tiny fines you often tend to see

My yearly earnings are revenue, not profit.

Would you not take a 30% pay increase just because it came with a risk to be fined 15% of your earnings once after profiting for many years though?

For Google that's a slap on the wrist.

But a slap which can easily be repeated (even with more force), if Google does not comply.

execs will jump with golden parachute after first strike.

Not an issue when whoever replaces them will know that they better behave.

Those will know they are supposed to missbehave to jump with parachute when time comes

Just another day in the office. European Commission... commission...

Oh no, someone from the Commission just down voted me.

Bet it was those who were asked about corruption and cut the microphone to those who really care.

We do deserve better in Europe.

This one is for Google. But Facebook and others do the same. How can we let them do this.

If you have responsability and let this happen, you just allow it.

Not the one who down-voted you, but I thought about it.

I believe the reason you got down-voted was because you comment did not add anything of productive to the discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com