Technology

Ceo's in orange jumpsuits.

It's crazy that this isn't being properly implemented (probably easier to say and talk about, but stil) because really hefty fines are the only way to stop companies from bullshitting their literal customers.

If there is one thing we know, than it is that companies will not stop at hurting people, the environment or fucking over their customers if it means they make a good profit off of it and can get away with it. It's literally a simple calculation for them, nothing more. Literally kill an entire ecosystem and risk poisoning tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of humans? No problem, as long as it pays off.

Companies should just be charged the fine multiplied by the number of offenses (like any individual being charged), then multiplied by the number of employees. Any amount over their available cash, becomes asset seizure (for "too critical to fail" companies) or make them go through bankruptcy to liquidate. Hell, you can even be nice and let them do a "payment plan" over a year or two, seizing all profit until the fine is paid in full. I bet companies would follow laws remarkably well if that were on the line.

The US would just be a couple Facebook privacy violations away from running a governmental surplus for the first time in decades!

It cannot be a fixed ceiling - fixed floor, sure - but ceiling should be a percentage of market cap. It’s their responsibility to maximize shareholder profits - making it no longer in the best interest of the shareholders if they had to sell more shares to raise money to pay fines and dilute shareholder value

What we need to do is treat internet access as a public utility rather than a private commodity. That means removing control of the essential infrastructure from private corporations, establishing strong public oversight, and heavily regulating how internet services are delivered to consumers.

The infrastructure already exists to provide virtually every American with high-speed internet access without compromising network performance. The argument that universal, affordable, high-speed internet is somehow technologically or economically unfeasible is largely a matter of priorities and policy.

Look at much of Europe, where consumers have access to significantly more internet service providers competing for the same customer base. In the United States, depending on where you live, you might have two or three realistic options, often with little meaningful competition between them. Three major providers dominate much of the market, and somehow they have managed to make an essential service extraordinarily expensive while offering consumers remarkably little choice.

I don't believe internet access should be something corporations get to hold hostage for profit. It is essential infrastructure in the modern world, and it should be treated accordingly.