If I don't get executive say in what happens at the company, I am not included in liability. I am not allowed to sit on the damn board with my pension fund.

Executives and controlling board members get held personally liable. It really is as simple as that. If you are in the meetings, and you get a vote, you are liable. There is absolutely no slippery slope fallacy here.

Any bullshit "uhm actually you technically are a shareholder" is just trying to ward off people having to take responsibility for their decisions. (also, in many pension schemas you aren't actually the shareholders, the investment fund technically is and you are just given the license to decide how they invest those funds and get a portion of the payout, but it is different than manually retail investing for example)

The highest level employee/officer who had knowledge of it should be held responsible

It doesn't matter how many layers of evasion there are. Responsibility has to be with individuals in order for there to be change.

The fact that a pension fund can hold shareholds is crazy by itself, also, is the pension found a company or managed by your state? It shouldn't really be a thing in first place

90 percent of stocks are owned by ten percent of Americans. Just throwing this fact out here

Also, which shareholders? Shareholders have no say in the business decisions outside of the annual voting for board members and whatever broad issues are brought up for a vote. If someone holds stock and then sells it before a vote, are they responsible for the business decisions? If a swing trader bought and then sold in one day/week/month (even at a loss), how much is their liability? If someone sells their shares just before a vote, then buys them again after, are they liable?

That might stop this madness.

See the thing is if your pension also funds a murder company does outsourcing who manages it not make you at least a little culpable? I think it does and i think the only way to stop this madness is for a little justice to come your way.

There should at least be something resembling an attempt of investigating, who, where, and when signed an order to implement this shit into their products. That way they will at least think twice if they want to risk the chance of being held personally responsible.

Consenting to recording makes recording legal.

Making that consent required to use the TV or its features and it being buried within lengthy, opaque terms of service in a country with a low level of literacy should be illegal, but it stands in the US because it's a consumer hostile country.

Call recording laws in some U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the recording, while other states generally require both parties to be aware. Several states require that all parties consent when one party wants to record a telephone conversation.