Yeah that's why I'm expecting another change. When they tried banning Epic the EU said no, and Apple was forced to move to this point. I expect/hope that the EU comes back with a further "clarification" on Apple's contention that they can gate this to 1,000,000 downloads.
It is funny to see American companies scream "that's not fair" when faced with a functional government.
Corporate personhood means that legally they are. If we stripped that away and let the board of governors go to jail for doing blatantly illegal stuff, then they might stop being sociopathic.
Corporate officers who commit criminal violations in the conduct of their job are already legally liable for their behavior. The corporation they work for might also incur liability under the law of agency and vicarious liability.
Corporate personhood applies primarily to private law -- contract liability, civil torts, financial obligations and the like.
No, they'd still be sociopathic. They'd do the absolute minimum they have to do under the law, and no more than that - exactly as a sociopath would if watched by someone with the ability to hurt them.
Conscience is fundamentally a trait that requires some kind of physical personhood - an actual self-identity with empathy attached to it. Corporations, being pure legal fiction, have neither.
This is why it is imperative to keep them as small and toothless as we possibly can as a society, even beyond issues with monopolies.
But in the case of the boards being mentioned, the sociopathy is combined with competition between members that doesn't exist right now. If one board member suggests doing something that would be negatively viewed but another doesn't, they are then competing with each other for the direction of the company as opposed to working together to do whatever sociopathic things serves both their best interests.
Sociopathy is all about driving the interests of the individual. Boards not being liable for the actions of companies allows those interests to always be aligned. Taking that away would require them to think about what's good for the business but also what's good for themselves and those things won't always align for all board members the way they do now.
I wasn't referring to board members being sociopathic as people, but to the whole entity being sociopathic as a whole. That is generally the case for any organization in direct proportion to its size, even if none of the constituent members are sociopaths.
The problem is that the more people you have working together on something, the less you can rely on informal human interactions to keep things running, and the more written rules and rigid processes you need. Those written rules and rigid processes increasingly take out human factors (such as empathy) out of the equation, and the result is that the entity as a whole behaves in an increasingly sociopathic manner even when its goals (as set by e.g. the board) are ostensibly beneficial.
> Conscience is fundamentally a trait that requires some kind of physical personhood - an actual self-identity with empathy attached to it. Corporations, being pure legal fiction, have neither.
And, for the same reason, they have no capacity for autonomous thought and action. Corporations are just organizational models for coordinating human activity, but all of the agency still originates with individuals, because there's nothing else that it could originate with.
All malicious acts you are attributing to corporations actually originate from the malicious intent of individuals who are merely using the corporation as an organizational model.
> This is why it is imperative to keep them as small and toothless as we possibly can as a society, even beyond issues with monopolies.
Keeping organized forms of social coordination "small and toothless" is inherently antagonistic to the concept of society itself -- the proper solution is to constrain malicious behavior without interfering with non-malicious behavior, regardless of how that behavior is coordinated or formalized.
There's also a paradox here, in that I have not seen any mechanism proposed for combating the implicit sociopath of one kind of organization that doesn't rely on creating even greater concentrations of monopoly power in the hands of an essentially equivalent form of organization.
I'm really not clear on why you're arguing against this. A proper data warehouse tackles the known unknowns, i.e. supervised learning. But you can glean new insights using unsupervised learning, like the textbook example of Target knowing a woman is pregnant based on sales data.
I know someone who did that in the Yukon during the winter, just monitor temperatures and crack a window when it got too hot. Seems like a great solution except that they were in a different building so they had to trudge through the snow to close the window if it got too cold.
Welcome to University IT, where organizational structures are basically feudal (by law!). Imagine an organization where your president can't order a VP to do something, and you have academia :)
Yeah in the early 2000s Java was supposed to be the universal platform of write once run everywhere. And then every IT department locked Java out, so we said fuck it and wrote everything in PHP.
How dare you deny their lived experience? The OP clearly stated that it's BAD.
As someone who runs a low code dev shop (I have a low/high mix of frameworks), I've already started reflecting on my BAD behaviour. I will repent and jettison all of my cruds, and web forms, and other dumb little things that provide so much value to my clients.
Assuming "As someone who runs a low code dev shop" is true, why the tone when you're clearly more biased than OP just on the other side of the fence? If anything you've reinforced their point, the fact that a whole ass "dev shop" exists to support low-code just supports their argument.
It is funny to see American companies scream "that's not fair" when faced with a functional government.