this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2026
674 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

85964 readers
4014 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 23 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

Total Worth doesn't matter. What matters is revenue and profit and that is the basis for the fine.

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 9 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

When it comes to something punitive like a fine, fine versus worth is literally the only thing that matters. If the fine isn't big enough, it's more like a fee for doing business. They just added to the bottom line and keep rolling.

[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 1 points 28 minutes ago

It really is not. Companies operate on creating profit. Activities are judged on their ROI. Worth is not relevant for the ROI.

[–] badgermurphy@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I think worth and cash flow are too loosely correlated for that to work how youre intending. I'm all for punitive fines for corporate malfeasance, but if they're based on worth only, a company could easily become insolvent even from fines that aren't intended to be fatal to them.

If it is based off their cash flow instead and potentially distributed over a period of time, it can do multiple good things at once: force the company to literally pay for the harms it caused, damage their operations enough to financially discourage the behavior, and keep corporate behavior in line through examples without frequently disrupting markets by unduly bankrupting companies.

If a company does end up doing something so bad that it is unforgivable and irreparable, and it's deemed worthy of destroying them or punishing those responsible directly, I can see the reasoning for that, too. But, I think it would work best if the punishments are dialed in to have the desired result as often as possible. Allowing the possibility of offenders correcting course seems better for everyone while still allowing any victims to get justice.