Post by @inthehands@hachyderm.io

2026-10-26 14:29 UTC

My controversial-not-actually-controversial take is that the Meta fine is still too small by a factor of 10, in principle the judge shouldn’t have discounted it (but I realize in practice he’s just trying to get some scrap of it to survive appeal), and if liability were actually an •existential• threat to megacorps instead of an expense line then that would mitigate a whole bunch of societal problems at once.

Replies (3)

@Dany@hsnl.social 2026-10-26 14:35

@inthehands@hachyderm.io fines like this are a tax on breaking the law. It's just a price to pay, and the business case makes sense to just pay and get on with it. After appealing it down by another factor of 10 and coming to a settlement of course.

Open ##5284008
@vatine@mendeddrum.org 2026-10-26 18:05

@inthehands@hachyderm.io I am all for revenue-linked fines for companies. That is, the law says "you will be fined 300[*] days worth of revenue", rather than "you will be fined X million currency units". Revenue, not profit, is (I think) important. [*] 300 is an example fine, adjust as appropriate for the offence

Open ##5284025
@CJPaloma@mstdn.social 2026-10-26 19:11

@inthehands@hachyderm.io so many lawsuits lately but if you’re referring to the estimated 43 -million- violations they were found guilty on…I think dissolution of the corp, substantial jail time for the entire exec group, and provisions to prevent them from being C suite execs ever again would be justice. I realize that’s not possible currently, and it’s a large part of what enables these slimeballs. I mean an active slimeball whose company (in a dif industry) was fined billions…is a sitting Senator.

Open ##5284028