cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/6745228

TLDR: Apple wants to keep china happy, Stewart was going after china in some way, Apple said don’t, Stewart walked, the show is dead.

Not surprising at all, but sad and shitty and definitely reduces my loyalty to the platform. Hosting Stewart seemed like a real power play from Apple, where conflict like this was inevitable, but they were basically saying, yes we know, but we believe in things and, as a big company with deep pockets that can therefore take risks, to prove it we’re hosting this show.

Changing their minds like this is worse than ever hosting the show in the first place as it shows they probably don’t know what they’re doing or believe in at all, like any big company, and just going for what seems cool, and undermining the very idea of a company like Apple running a streaming platform. I wonder if the Morning Show/Wars people are paying close attention.

  • Whatisawaffle
    link
    fedilink
    164
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “Public companies…legally have to put shareholders first.”

    I thought this too, but it is apparently a myth.

    "There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” — even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees. But this belief is utterly false.

    To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

      • @darmabum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        151 year ago

        well-being of the business…ahead of well-being of his employees.

        Hey, I mean, like, corporations are people too, man.

        • @SlopppyEngineer@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          161 year ago

          So corporations too should have to go to jail if they break the law. Or in this case close down the building and not perform any commercial activity for a certain time

          • Arghblarg
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Funny how that worked out huh? All the benefits of personhood, but none of the downsides, like mortality, having to pay fair taxes, incarceration for crimes, possible death penalty for killing citizens …

            • @OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              That is literally the whole point of corporations, they’re designed to allow people to take more risk. Business law 101.

              (If you grossly abuse it, they will “pierce the corporate veil” and arrest those responsible, but again, that’s only if you’re grossly abusing it)

          • @nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Still a sticky problem from labor’s perspective, unless the corporate time-out includes salary and healthcare payments. Maybe except the C suite?

            But then you might as well keep the company open (Unless it is currently doing harm), and throw the directors in jail.

            I always understood stock investing as assuming the risk something like that could happen (I’d a director fucks up, you lose, or vote him out of the job). But now that all of our retirement is tied to the fucking thing it can’t work that way.

    • nfh
      link
      fedilink
      English
      331 year ago

      Specifically, the thing that is wrong is the idea that the only way to uphold their fiduciary duty to shareholders is to maximize profit. They have a legal obligation to put their shareholders’ interest first, and maximizing short term profit is not the only way to do this. Benefit corps give some of their revenue to a cause, sometimes companies invest in long-term stability or profitability.

      • kirklennon
        link
        fedilink
        221 year ago

        It’s a good line in what is otherwise a very, very bad SCOTUS decision that a for-profit corporation can ignore laws protecting female employees because of the corporation’s religious beliefs.

        • eric
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          So bizarre that companies are capable of believing in gods.

    • @TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Lol try being a CEO and answering to your shareholders about how you’re not trying to maximize profits and growth. Like it may not be legally required but you’re kind of required to just by the nature of the role itself.