This has made me wonder: we all hear about the ability of shareholders to sue management if they don’t maximize profits. Suppose a corporation or its individual leaders does something on a social level that reduces profits, like, say, give a Nazi salute, or marketing their products as being for whites only, or something like that. Is that grounds for a shareholder suit?
I’m inclined to think no because it seems hard to prove cause and effect, and because my understanding is that the whole fiduciary duty to max profits as popularly understood may be overblown, but I wanted to get the, well, dope!
Tesla shareholders and Board of Directors are a cult in the rapture of Musk. Witness their approval of a $56 Billion BILLION pay package that a Delaware judge keeps slapping down. That voting does nothing for their own profit. It a psychological / pathological dependence on the image that is Musk. No fiduciary elements apply.
That’s an excellent point.
It’s easy to imagine that Musk sought out cultist-tending people for his BoD. But that wouldn’t explain the shareholders. (I suppose they self-selected for being cult-craving.)
On the Nazi salutes: some Musk defenders are saying ‘hey, it’s totally okay because he was giving the ROMAN salute not the Nazi salute!’ But of course the Roman salute was what Mussolini appropriated to stand for Fascism (and then it was adopted by the German fascists, too).
So, not much of a defense.
(It’s like the people who excuse using the swastika on the grounds that it’s actually Buddhist, or Native American. Come on, if you use it, you know what you’re trying to say.)
Tesla IRL is, to me, irrelevant. What I was asking was, is it feasible, or is it completely out of the realm of possibility for any publicly traded company or any action?
My fear is that that happens and Musk can show that X even more money if it was even more hate friendly.
‘Let’s add Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the ToS and The Turner Diaries to the EULA!’
I’m not sure about an all out lawsuit but it should, in a reasonably run company, be grounds to at least push the board to consider if he’s the best person to continue representing the company as CEO.
The ADL have completely lost the plot. Fuck these quislings.
Why should you care? It’s not like it means anything right? You can buy me a coke when you’re in a gulag haha right?
This makes it easy.
If you are still on Twitter, you’re a Nazi.
No exceptions.
Stealing that.
I have never been in a disaster, but bananas, oranges, and - crucially - a tub of red liquorice, are all in my grab bag.
I’ve never seen RED licorice before. Do you know where I can find some?
Its what people that hate licorice call Cherry Twizzlers? Did something go whoosh?
The President Trump insanity starts early this term, eh? Right off the bat.
IMO …
Yes, and Yes. 
I don’t think that’s right or fair. That’s guilt by association, and it’s fallacious reasoning.
I’ve never tweeted or Xed, but I think all Americans are using platforms and businesses whose owners are supporting this fascist regime. Best not to, of course, but boycotting the stupidest while supporting others is little more than symbolic.
This is not in any way a defence of Musk or X; I don’t understand why people are still there. I just don’t think it makes them fascists.
There’s a big difference between a CEO who worries only about the bottom line and supports whoever is in charge, versus one who actively supports a fascist and elevates fascist thoughts and policies himself, with a range between those. I’d put Bezos at the “support whoever” end, Zuck somewhere in the middle, and Musk at the opposite end.
Someone might decide they can’t support anyone on that continuum, which is a valid position. But deciding that one is OK while another is too extreme is also valid, and it’s fallacious to say if you shop Amazon then you have no standing to criticize Twitter.
Depends on how much you want to assert that e.g. “Every early 1940s German was a Nazi”. Heck even legitimately imprisoned ordinary criminals such as robbers or murderers somehow supported the regime by their prison work. Despite (probably) having darn little nice to say about their living conditions or politics.
In a bit less telegraphic form …
I see the beginnings of a “No true scotsman” / litmus test argument over who is sufficiently demonstrative of their non-support or active resistance to the incoming regime. All who fall below the acceptable threshold are labeled as active Fascists.
That way lies madness.
In the immediate aftermath of the election, Bluesky was growing at about 8 to 10 users a second (at least when I was sitting in front of a computer screen). There are clickers on the web so you can watch growth in real time, and it was fun having one open - cheered me up. By the beginning of the year growth had slowed to maybe 15 or 20 per minute, which was pretty meh. So I gave up on the ticker.
A week or so ago I took another look, and growth was back up to 1 to 2 new users per second - interesting. Right now it’s running at about 4 per second. At 6 PM GMT yesterday membership stood at 28 308 000 or thereabouts, and I wondered - are we growing at, say, a quarter million a day?
Just a note to say that 28 558 000 was exceeded now, at 5.31 PM GMT.
j