Does the bill give powers to easily seize the domain of the offending organization? One reason I ask is that a company might flirt with the risk having an executive locked up but they most certainly will not risk the potential revenue loss of their domain being parked on a static government page.
A company can throw a new CEO under the bus any time. The board might even use that as a passive aggressive tool to dump their CEO. There will always be a person eager and available to fill the role.
That is my understanding as well. One reason I ask is that such laws would require cooperation between governments and agreements ahead of times around processes and procedures. I am curious if such agreements exist and to what extent such processes are in place.
Something I've not heard anything about from an authoritative source - in the US, I've noticed laws being written with a preface that makes a political statement about what the law is, does, and why, and it is not at all consistent with the rest of it, which defines terms carefully.
It seems to be a trick to send a chosen message to the media without having any effect on the court system.
So I wonder if that could account for the "unenforceability" of some laws - basically what the law is reported as being, is just a fiction for the public, so the courts don't even engage with it.
Zuck isn’t just a regular CEO. He also has majority voting control of the company due to having irrevocable proxy voting rights on Moscovitz’s and Parker’s shares.
He is, for all intents and purposes, Facebook/Meta, and it seems unlikely he’d throw himself under the bus.
I never understood why Microsoft executives were not jailed for contempt of court when the videos they produced as evidence, in the anti-trust trial, turned out to be wholly fabricated.
11 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 37.9 ms ] threadA company can throw a new CEO under the bus any time. The board might even use that as a passive aggressive tool to dump their CEO. There will always be a person eager and available to fill the role.
It seems to be a trick to send a chosen message to the media without having any effect on the court system.
So I wonder if that could account for the "unenforceability" of some laws - basically what the law is reported as being, is just a fiction for the public, so the courts don't even engage with it.
He is, for all intents and purposes, Facebook/Meta, and it seems unlikely he’d throw himself under the bus.