You might "execute" a corporation for proven anti-human actions, but that takes time. New corporations can crop up, maybe even involving some of the same prior executives, and the cycle starts again.
You might "execute" a corporation for proven anti-human actions, but that takes time. New corporations can crop up, maybe even involving some of the same prior executives, and the cycle starts again.
It'd be more than fair that Zuckerberg has to pay 65% of his personal wealth gained by preying on adolescent insecurities.
And anyone else who was in a leadership role at Meta.
The deterrent is not allowing "Oops, I created a bad social outcome, but I'm keeping the profit I made from it" to be a viable way of getting rich.
And at least plant some doubt in folks doing evil that retribution might claw back their wealth in the future.
1. Facebook knew its products were addictive.
2. They knew this addiction had negative effects on its users.
3. After knowing the above, they tried to make them more addictive to make more money.
It's not a complicated judgement call.Most of these regulations apply to vapes, if they're owned by a legacy MSA cigarette company. With more regulation teed up for the new vape companies (i.e. JUUL youth marketing lawsuits).
If we treat social media companies like tobacco companies, I'd be perfectly happy.
The analog of people not losing speech when speaking through a corporation would be persecution for criminal acts while working for one.
This absolutely exists already. The challenge is finding a law that was broken.