• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      110
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s the same thing Brazil did.

      He’s rich enough that he’s kind of a parent corporation by himself, so:

      X was previously accused of violating the Digital Services Act (DSA), which could result in fines of up to 6 percent of total worldwide annual turnover. That fine would be levied on the “provider” of X, which could be defined to include other Musk-led firms.

      But yeah, American law has been limited so the buck stops at the company which declares bankruptcy and the money starts a new company.

      Not everyone else system is as shitty

  • reksas@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    125
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    fine the fucker for 20% of his net “worth”, that should give him some pause

  • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Do it. The crimes are almost entirely by him personally, and had unprecedented damage. He should be responsible with all his money - a Twitter-sized blow would be a slap on the wrist as the platform is worth just $5B or thereabouts.

  • Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    30 days ago

    How about making them such a high percentage that it would genuinely impact their bottom line and not a measly amount calculated as “cost of doing business”

  • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    That would be extra funny, considering at least some motivation behind his initially bidding on Twitter, was to cash out his absurdly overvalued Tesla stock, without causing it to crash.

    Clearly he signed that initial Delaware contract while he was still riding high on mania, but still, his desire to convert his overpriced Tesla stock played no small part. The remaining rationale was mostly drug-induced psychosis, but I digress.

    So, calculating fines based on his overpriced assets, forcing him to sell off a bunch of those shitty assets, and risking their price falling closer to their true worth, would be hilarious.

    It’s also why I am skeptical that they’ll do it, or at least I’m skeptical they’ll do it in a way that would trigger a domino effect, or market contagion.

  • x00z@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s finally time to hold the people hiding behind the companies accountable!!

    woohoo!

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      For twitter, he actually isn’t. That was the original plan, but he moved away from it and got additional external financing, and then put up more cash himself by selling additional Tesla stock.

      Not sure about boring company / neuralink.

  • Kokesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    1 month ago

    As much as I hate musk, I don’t think this is correct, or even legal…?

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      30 days ago

      He’s free to leave the EU at anytime. They are allowed to create appropriate punishments to deter further misuse. They are saying here that they need to be able to punish more to deter him, as he’s an asshole who says fuck you to everyone.

    • unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      30 days ago

      legality i don’t know, but guess who has an infinite supply of lawyers? Musk was able to secure loans for his Twitter misadventure based on all his other shit. Everything he does is entangled with his other stuff. The Hyperloop? lies.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      he’s the one whose blurred the lines between the businesses.

      taking funds from one to pay for the other regularly.

      I’d say the EU has every right to do it this way.

      • bluewing@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        30 days ago

        Corporations do this regularly. Using funds from one branch of their business to prop up others. That’s neither new or illegal in the EU.

        • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          29 days ago

          you’re right, it’s not. but when legally attempting to distinguish where one company ends and the other begins, it’s up to the court to judge based on liquidity between the two.

          if you run company A B and C and have money flowing from A to C and C to B and B to A, the feds might think you’re laundering money.

    • Blemgo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      While I have no idea about legality, it is quite obvious that X/Twitter is not really run as a company run as a public communications platform, but rather as a fever dream of Musk.

      Especially the Eli Lily Co. disaster should’ve been a wake up call for X of how much harm the fake checkmarks can bring, yet nothing was done. Most likely because Elon Musk didn’t care. He basically runs it like it’s how little service that he fully owns and controls with full disregard to anything but his own vision.

      Therefore including his other businesses makes sense, as the fine that is only based on X’s income would probably be negligible in his opinion, as he runs it on a loss anyways. Only bigger fines would actually have any effect in my opinion.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        30 days ago

        I still can’t believe nothing substantive came of that.

        It was incredibly harmful to the reputation and stock value of multiple pharmaceutical companies as well as Twitter. And then the greedy pharma assholes had to publicly announce they were still price-gauging people for life-sustaining medicine, making the reputational damage even worse.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        30 days ago

        That very much reads like “the ends justifies the means” logic. If a fine isn’t likely to change behavior, they should just block the platform.

  • mwguy@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    1 month ago

    Is the EU just going to bet that none of its companies ever have to do business outside of the EU?