• pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s what everyone is saying but this policy will only cost them from lawsuits, so it can’t just be about money.

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      It will cost them in future earnings… Companies won’t want to work on their platform if these policies are still in place… and many will never want to work with them again since they’ve shown their hand.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is what makes me think there’s something more to this.

        I think rival companies might groom CEOs that get hired by their competitors but whom, secretly, are paid by the rivals to destroy the companies from within.

        Perhaps I’m wrong but that’s the only explanation I’ve been able to come up with that makes any sense to me.

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The CEOs don’t need to be paid by other companies. All a competing company needs to do, is to convince some company’s board members to hire a CEO with a track record that they know will tank the company… maybe through indirect lobbying, maybe by hinting they want to hire them because it’s “such a valuable CEO”… and bam!

          CEO ruins company, then bails on a golden parachute, and you only had to spend whatever it took to mislead the competing board.

          (I’ve seen it done to tiny companies with as few as 20 workers, it’s surprisingly easy to convince a board to hire someone who will destroy everything)

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, plenty of business “geniuses” make some pretty boneheaded moves, especially when they feel a need to try to produce huge growth after saturating a market, or if their business results somehow fall short of some need (either actually losing money, or some arbitrary self-imposed “goal” not being hit).

      Currently there’s an epidemic of businesses making some pretty dubious long term decisions for the sake of trying to prop up numbers amidst a receding market reality. Recessions are, in part, a self-fulfilling prophecy, where whatever impetus exists, it’s exacerbated by every participant screwing things up further.