cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/6745228

TLDR: Apple wants to keep china happy, Stewart was going after china in some way, Apple said don’t, Stewart walked, the show is dead.

Not surprising at all, but sad and shitty and definitely reduces my loyalty to the platform. Hosting Stewart seemed like a real power play from Apple, where conflict like this was inevitable, but they were basically saying, yes we know, but we believe in things and, as a big company with deep pockets that can therefore take risks, to prove it we’re hosting this show.

Changing their minds like this is worse than ever hosting the show in the first place as it shows they probably don’t know what they’re doing or believe in at all, like any big company, and just going for what seems cool, and undermining the very idea of a company like Apple running a streaming platform. I wonder if the Morning Show/Wars people are paying close attention.

  • Whatisawaffle@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    172
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “Public companies…legally have to put shareholders first.”

    I thought this too, but it is apparently a myth.

    "There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” — even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees. But this belief is utterly false.

    To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

    • hiddengoat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      74
      ·
      1 year ago

      And to piggyback on this, the decision that’s often pointed to by sociopaths to justify that horseshit is Dodge Brothers vs Ford, wherein the Brothers Dodge invested in Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford was more interested in paying his employees and providing them with things like housing and antisemitic literature than he was in giving the Dodge boys massive ROI.

      They sued and the STATE OF MICHIGAN Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court, found that Ford had a responsibility to his investors before he had a responsibility to his employees. This does NOT mean that he had to “maximize profit”, it simply meant that Ford had to put the well-being of the business and investors ahead of the well-being of his employees.

      It’s worth noting that Ford wasn’t just paying people well. He almost ran FMC like a charity, he was so focused on worker satisfaction. That’s where the issue came in. The idea that you have to underpay people because “MUXIMUSS PROOFIZ” is a Harvard Business sociopath lie.

      • darmabum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        well-being of the business…ahead of well-being of his employees.

        Hey, I mean, like, corporations are people too, man.

        • SlopppyEngineer@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So corporations too should have to go to jail if they break the law. Or in this case close down the building and not perform any commercial activity for a certain time

          • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Funny how that worked out huh? All the benefits of personhood, but none of the downsides, like mortality, having to pay fair taxes, incarceration for crimes, possible death penalty for killing citizens …

            • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              That is literally the whole point of corporations, they’re designed to allow people to take more risk. Business law 101.

              (If you grossly abuse it, they will “pierce the corporate veil” and arrest those responsible, but again, that’s only if you’re grossly abusing it)

          • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Still a sticky problem from labor’s perspective, unless the corporate time-out includes salary and healthcare payments. Maybe except the C suite?

            But then you might as well keep the company open (Unless it is currently doing harm), and throw the directors in jail.

            I always understood stock investing as assuming the risk something like that could happen (I’d a director fucks up, you lose, or vote him out of the job). But now that all of our retirement is tied to the fucking thing it can’t work that way.

    • nfh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Specifically, the thing that is wrong is the idea that the only way to uphold their fiduciary duty to shareholders is to maximize profit. They have a legal obligation to put their shareholders’ interest first, and maximizing short term profit is not the only way to do this. Benefit corps give some of their revenue to a cause, sometimes companies invest in long-term stability or profitability.

      • kirklennon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a good line in what is otherwise a very, very bad SCOTUS decision that a for-profit corporation can ignore laws protecting female employees because of the corporation’s religious beliefs.

    • TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Lol try being a CEO and answering to your shareholders about how you’re not trying to maximize profits and growth. Like it may not be legally required but you’re kind of required to just by the nature of the role itself.