2735
These are the privacy permissions that you grant for Meta's new twitter competitor (yiffit.net)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
502 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Yikes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

It's not just changing the law of a country though, I'm pretty sure some degree of private property is in the Human Rights and would require changing international law. Not to mention it would open a whole another can of worms.

And by the way, I wasn't talking about re-investment, more like those CEOs funneling all of their money into some backwards fund or hiding it with fake IDs, You can't accurately seize assets if those "assets" can be hidden or saved somewhere else. They just pass off as bankrupt, lose their debt and get buck in business with the same money they had before.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    Are you seriously trying to argue that corporations should be allowed to get away with harming humans, because human rights? We're not discussing the current system, were discussing what would be the most fair. Is this really the take you want to go with?

    Some places execute criminal people, why should criminal organisations be any different? With those, there doesn't even have to be any actual killing involved. But you think its untenable because it would harm the people who own it, and benefited from the crime?

    The only reason hiding personal wealth in that way is possible, is because government lets it happen, mostly because the people making the laws, do it too.

    That should obviously stop.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    The issue is that it's a slippery slope. When you start taking human rights away from one group of people, it could very easily lead to innocent people, or entire groups, being framed and legally stripped of their possessions. That's why I think opening that can of worms is a bad idea.

    And it's not that easy. People figured hundreds of ways to hide wealth and there's no way you can regulate them all. Split it between relatives, buy non-quantifiable assets, hell they could buy bitcoins with multiple proxies on the dark web from an old pc in the middle of Africa and we'd know absolutely nothing of that. Unless you build some sort of utopic database which documents every living person's possessions and the exchange between them, it's just not possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

    What exactly is your point?

    That because it would be difficult to get right, we shouldn't try?

    Isn't that true for most things worth doing?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    I just think giving the government a legal way to close down corporations and seize their assets doesn’t set a good precedent and could do more harm than good.

    In contrast, I think having fines that actually matter and laws more strict on what a site can do without permission from the user are easier to do and have overall less ways to be exploited.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent