this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2025
155 points (98.7% liked)

Asklemmy

47786 readers
761 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The worst corp I can think of is Nestlé, these pieces of shit have done a lot of environmental damage and have been known to engage or complicit in slavery.

Erasing Nestlé is like erasing the infectious boil on a human body.

What foul company would you erase for good and why?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

I mean, all that are privately owned. A system that puts profit above all else will never have any corporation that acts ethically and in the interest of society.

But I also wanna mention, Nestlé isn't a particularly evil corporation. It's just the only food corporation where we know these things they've been up to but you can be damn sure the others aren't any better.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

Nestle is pretty particarly evil.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I'd argue the publicly owned ones are actually the bigger problems. At least with privately owned ones there's usually a single individual or small group of individuals that can be influenced threatened and held accountable, or what passes for accountability these days. With publicly own companies though there's this concept of the nebulous shareholder. There's such a wide range of people who own the shares of the company that they are untouchable yet at the same time completely ignorable. Companies don't have to answer to the shareholders because the shareholders don't feel involved enough or care enough to actually speak out. Instead it's the concept of the shareholder. Which is actually more dangerous. That anonymity makes it a more brutal and ravenous concept. Private companies are able to think more long term because the private owner is able to think long-term, or longer rather, where is publicly owned companies that Anonymous shareholder concept requires constant unending and immediate growth. Which is a cancerous concept. For society and the planet both.

Not that either is good of course, just that one's more dangerous. Also Nestle is very very evil, publicly owned by the way.