Dot. to World NewsEnglish • 6 hours agoNetflix Wiped Most of Its “Palestinian Stories” Collection — and Erased the Whole Thing in Israel.theintercept.comexternal-linkmessage-square24fedilinkarrow-up1272arrow-down113
arrow-up1259arrow-down1external-linkNetflix Wiped Most of Its “Palestinian Stories” Collection — and Erased the Whole Thing in Israel.theintercept.comDot. to World NewsEnglish • 6 hours agomessage-square24fedilink
minus-squaresnooggumslinkEnglish13•5 hours ago If they are told they make more money harming you, CEOs literally have a legal responsibility to choose that option. No they fucking don’t. They choose to do so out of greediness the vast majority of the time, but it isn’t a legal obligation.
minus-square@scarabiclinkEnglish1•1 hour agoAnd let’s not forget that most significant forms of “harm” are illegal in the first place. The comment above you makes it sound like any minute now, Nabisco might decide it’s more profitable for them to roll out to your house and kill you.
minus-squaregranolabarlinkfedilink9•4 hours agoYou are actually not wrong but if they dont obey BoD, it is the shed. Bigger question here if this “simplification” is a valid tactic to communicate the message. Theoretically BoD could sue the CEO, but i dont think that ever happened in this context… Only in cases of fraud, ie stealing company assets
No they fucking don’t.
They choose to do so out of greediness the vast majority of the time, but it isn’t a legal obligation.
And let’s not forget that most significant forms of “harm” are illegal in the first place. The comment above you makes it sound like any minute now, Nabisco might decide it’s more profitable for them to roll out to your house and kill you.
You are actually not wrong but if they dont obey BoD, it is the shed.
Bigger question here if this “simplification” is a valid tactic to communicate the message.
Theoretically BoD could sue the CEO, but i dont think that ever happened in this context… Only in cases of fraud, ie stealing company assets