this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
939 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
59232 readers
3179 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This isn't a "fine" to Amazon. 25 million dollars is just the cost of business.
Make this 250 or 500 million and then... Maybe.... it's a fine.
Fuck it. Hit them with a couple of billion and THEN companies might stop being shitheads to basic human rights.
Totally agree. Facebook should have been absolutely crippled financially after influencing an election, but they get off scot free.
My idea is this:
Instead of a maximum fine being applied, you take a violation, lets say influencing an election, and you calculate how much of the corporations revenue came from that source. (i.e. Facebook messenger revenue would not count for election manipulation). Then, take a huge portion of that revenue (60%, 70%? [Depending on the violation]) and take that from their revenue. Who gives a shit if Facebook literally has to close down one of their services from lack of finances, thats what they get.
Why not 150%. At a bare minimum every single dollar brought in by illegal action deserves to be taken.
Yeah, something at or above 100% would be good. Even at 100% they're still losing the cost of doing business and getting zero revenue from it which is a poor business decision.
Agreed.
I only mentioned my range because then perhaps it would move to a different column in their budget.
25 million is nothing to Amazon.
A couple of billion might move it into an enterily new spreadsheet and maybe even precipitate a meeting to figure out who needs to be fired. Maybe.
Amazon makes between $53 million and $54 million an hour. This is the first Google search result, but even if it's exaggerated, 25 million doesn't even leave the tiniest mark... It's sad...
Lol, my life would be over, if i were to be fined 25 million
But you'd be fine if you were fined one hour of minimum wage, likely!
This isn't entirely correct, the $25M fine is a slap on the wrist sure, but this is a COPPA ruling, which essentially means it's a $25M slap on the wrist and a "delete the data and change the way you're doing shit now or else". Nobody has gotten to the "or else" with COPPA afaik, but you'd essentially be risking daily fines until fixed and risk losing operating rights in the US entirely. Would that actually happen to Amazon? We'll never know, because they're going to fix it before they get there. Not worth the risk.
This is a win. Not every ruling has to bankrupt a company, changing how they operate through legal process is a good thing. This is how regulation is formed.
Fair enough, good reply.
Upvoted :)
(Maybe Lemmy will bring back some good discussions in threads like these...)
I think the public gets fatigued when we hear about the profits these companies make and then we see these comparatively small fines.
If this is how we "steer the vessel of regulation" then I can accept that this is a push in a better direction.
However, I still feel that a fine in the hundreds of millions, ( not bankrupting but a "shot in the leg" versus a "slap on the wrist"), is appropriate for these very large corporations. They already weild so much political and economic power that consequences for things like this should be higher.
In other words, let's encourage them to operate responsibly in the first place.
Yeah it's definitely not satisfying, heads will never roll, but it is progress! Better than a "Woops, sorry for dumping billions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, here's some pocket change, we'll do it again next week" at least.
Now the question is whether that progress is fast enough to keep up with a changing tech landscape, at the moment I don't think so. We're still arguing about data privacy, governments don't have the balls to even start tackling misinformation at the source, and generative AI is a whole other beast that regulators have barely started talking about.
This. Fines should not be fixed at a specific amount, but rather as a percentage of the total income of the company for a year. Just as laws are regulated according to technological advances, fines must also be regulated to truly impact companies and make them think twice before breaking the law.
Business fines should always be dealt in percentages.
It shouldn't be a fine at all. It should be jailtime for executives involved, and asset seizure.
That is the solution.
And before the usual story "but companies are not people and you cannot punish people for things a company did": in the end, in a company there is always someone that make a decision. It is too easy to commit a crime and then say "but the company did it".
It's how they always hide, and they won't ever stop until we hold them accountable. By law or otherwise.
It does depend on how many violations there were. If it was 1, then that's a hefty fine. If it's a million, then yes.... Cost of business.
That's not how laws work.
If you break the law, you deal with the consequences.
It's not a "game system" where additional infractions lead to multipliers of consequences.
Child labor laws exist because we saw what happened in the past when they did not exist. We, as a society, care about our children enough to protect them. That includes preventing them, by law, from working in industrial environments.
Some states seem inclined to repeat the past by repealing or loosening child labor laws... .
Now another child is dead as a result.
Not really. If you commit more times the crime, you can end with a sentence that is more than the one for a single crime.
I mean, in the US you can get X life sentences (ok, it is only facade at this point) when just 1 is enough in any case.