I don’t really see how on the one hand you can be yelling Fuck Meta, then on the other be complaining about how Zuck is taking money from the owners of Meta and giving it to California in the form of tax money.
‘Meta shareholders’ include most people with a retirement account. Even if you don’t have much in it and they’ve only defrauded you of $5, multiply that by 150 million people who have a 401k.
First of all, diluting your stocks is not fraud. At end of story there.
Second of all, those institutional investors will just put that money into a different more valuable company, driving down metas stock price.
This is literally horseshit logic that would lead you to think that any company, once they hit a certain size cannot be let to fail or suffer, just because they’re now part of an index fund. Thats absolute horseshit.
The entire “AI” industry is based on fraud and product misrepresentation, and when the bubble pops we’ll see what the courts say when people start suing.
No it’s not. I’m sorry, but everyone on Reddi / Lemmy who is all like ‘ai is horseshit and doesn’t do anything’, are fucking, sotrich-like, head in the sand, idiots.
You can be anti-AI for the economic reason, or you can be anit-AI because you think it doesn’t work, and the latter camp are blind morons.
I’m anti-LLMs and generative AI both because it’s useless garbage and because of the disgusting social and environmental cost. Anyone who thinks it works incredibly is either using for shit that barely required a sapient person to begin with (writing office emails and making flyers), or they’re using it as the most expensive autocorrect in the world (coders). Shockingly, all of which can be done without destroying the planet and with fewer errors if you just pay actual people to do it. All of which is irrelevant to the fact that it simply does not to the things these companies are claiming it does. It is not going to replace your human work force, it is not going to recursively improve itself any more than breeding faster horses made trains.
Oh, sorry, I forgot it also works incredibly for spamming and hacking insecure systems. Vital needs worth destroying the planet over.
Being autocomplete on steroids that can cough up another version of whatever hack that already exists online doesn’t make it useful or powerful, any more than being able to autocomplete a story does.
You should try using the Claude Opus models before confidently dismissing AI as autocomplete on steroids.
The fact is that’s it’s shockingly capable of planning and executing complex tasks. It’s still clearly not functioning the way that human intelligence does, but it is far more capable than autocomplete on steroids regurgitating the same thing.
If you don’t like how a company behaves (like giving someone a pile of cash to pay their tax bill) don’t invest in them. If you think stock go up anyway, and don’t mind, do.
‘Make it your unpaid job to track down the behavior of the dozens to hundreds of companies in your 401k’ is an unrealistic bar to expect the average person to be able to jump. You can start and share your findings.
Also kind of a weird response to criminal behavior from a corporation.
Consider first Friedman’s erroneous belief that shareholders “own” corporations. Although laymen sometimes have difficulty understanding the point, corporations are legal entities that own themselves, just as human entities own themselves. What shareholders own are shares, a type of contact between the shareholder and the legal entity that gives shareholders limited legal rights. In this regard, shareholders stand on equal footing with the corporation’s bondholders, suppliers, and employees, all of whom also enter contracts with the firm that give them limited legal rights.
As other commenters have pointed out, you don’t have to choose to invest in Meta to find yourself a Meta shareholder, or at least holder of shares in another entity that does hold Meta shares.
This seems to be nonsensical splitting of hairs. While shareholders do not technically own the corporation directly they can and will perform functions like shutting down a corporation. While the day to day operations is conducted by the board of directors they answer to the shareholders.
Shareholders are the legal owners of a corporation, while the board of directors is the governing body elected by those shareholders to oversee company leadership.
Furthermore, saying shareholders stand on equal footing with the corporation’s bondholders, suppliers, and employees is absolutely nonsense unless they themselves are also shareholders. While this may be technically true in some respects the reality is quite a bit different. This argument completely falls apart under many common circumstances.
There is also a big difference between minority and majority shareholders with the minority (often employees) being mostly ignored.
While shareholders do not technically own the corporation directly … Shareholders are the legal owners of a corporation
It seems to me you’re trying to have it both ways.
saying shareholders stand on equal footing with the corporation’s bondholders, suppliers, and employees is absolutely nonsense
I read this to mean that everyone in those groups has some kind of contractual understanding with the corporation, and none of them have property rights. That the shareholders aren’t, legally speaking, special.
It is a legal thing, shareholders own the corporation, but not the companies physical assets. So a shareholder couldn’t walk into a business and take something and say “I own this”. They can however vote to close a corporation or fire the board and form a new one.
The shareholders legally are special, but it doesn’t always work in their favor. For instance, they are the last to be paid.
I am no expert, but I have been an Executive Director in the past. I was just talking about the concept, which as you can tell, is pretty complex.
Lol so now we care about Meta shareholders?
I don’t really see how on the one hand you can be yelling Fuck Meta, then on the other be complaining about how Zuck is taking money from the owners of Meta and giving it to California in the form of tax money.
META Shareholders: Pension funds and passive holders in their retirement accounts via index funds and mutual funds.
I’m sorry but this is just “too big to fail” horseshit that meta spews to stop you from divesting.
Money going from Meta shareholders to tax payers is a good thing. Full stop. End of story.
That drives down metas stock price and makes them less valuable. Those index funds and institutional investors will just reinvest somewhere else.
And that’s that greatest swindle played against the working class… Allocating their pension towards holding stocks from toxic companies like meta.
‘Meta shareholders’ include most people with a retirement account. Even if you don’t have much in it and they’ve only defrauded you of $5, multiply that by 150 million people who have a 401k.
They haven’t defrauded you of shit.
First of all, diluting your stocks is not fraud. At end of story there.
Second of all, those institutional investors will just put that money into a different more valuable company, driving down metas stock price.
This is literally horseshit logic that would lead you to think that any company, once they hit a certain size cannot be let to fail or suffer, just because they’re now part of an index fund. Thats absolute horseshit.
The entire “AI” industry is based on fraud and product misrepresentation, and when the bubble pops we’ll see what the courts say when people start suing.
No it’s not. I’m sorry, but everyone on Reddi / Lemmy who is all like ‘ai is horseshit and doesn’t do anything’, are fucking, sotrich-like, head in the sand, idiots.
You can be anti-AI for the economic reason, or you can be anit-AI because you think it doesn’t work, and the latter camp are blind morons.
I’m anti-LLMs and generative AI both because it’s useless garbage and because of the disgusting social and environmental cost. Anyone who thinks it works incredibly is either using for shit that barely required a sapient person to begin with (writing office emails and making flyers), or they’re using it as the most expensive autocorrect in the world (coders). Shockingly, all of which can be done without destroying the planet and with fewer errors if you just pay actual people to do it. All of which is irrelevant to the fact that it simply does not to the things these companies are claiming it does. It is not going to replace your human work force, it is not going to recursively improve itself any more than breeding faster horses made trains.
Oh, sorry, I forgot it also works incredibly for spamming and hacking insecure systems. Vital needs worth destroying the planet over.
You literally contradicted yourself in your own comment.
You claim it’s useless autocomplete, then at the end suddenly remember that it’s capable of hacking stuff.
Being autocomplete on steroids that can cough up another version of whatever hack that already exists online doesn’t make it useful or powerful, any more than being able to autocomplete a story does.
You should try using the Claude Opus models before confidently dismissing AI as autocomplete on steroids.
The fact is that’s it’s shockingly capable of planning and executing complex tasks. It’s still clearly not functioning the way that human intelligence does, but it is far more capable than autocomplete on steroids regurgitating the same thing.
If you don’t like how a company behaves (like giving someone a pile of cash to pay their tax bill) don’t invest in them. If you think stock go up anyway, and don’t mind, do.
‘Make it your unpaid job to track down the behavior of the dozens to hundreds of companies in your 401k’ is an unrealistic bar to expect the average person to be able to jump. You can start and share your findings.
Also kind of a weird response to criminal behavior from a corporation.
It’s not criminal- it is immoral. But Meta - do you really expect different. And yes, I do care about the things I’m invested in - cos it’s my money.
So share a list and your findings of the companies in your 401k, to make it easier for others.
I’m new to these facts myself, but:
– The Dumbest Business Idea Ever. The Myth of Maximizing Shareholder Value, By Lynn Stout
As other commenters have pointed out, you don’t have to choose to invest in Meta to find yourself a Meta shareholder, or at least holder of shares in another entity that does hold Meta shares.
This seems to be nonsensical splitting of hairs. While shareholders do not technically own the corporation directly they can and will perform functions like shutting down a corporation. While the day to day operations is conducted by the board of directors they answer to the shareholders.
Shareholders are the legal owners of a corporation, while the board of directors is the governing body elected by those shareholders to oversee company leadership.
Furthermore, saying shareholders stand on equal footing with the corporation’s bondholders, suppliers, and employees is absolutely nonsense unless they themselves are also shareholders. While this may be technically true in some respects the reality is quite a bit different. This argument completely falls apart under many common circumstances.
There is also a big difference between minority and majority shareholders with the minority (often employees) being mostly ignored.
It seems to me you’re trying to have it both ways.
I read this to mean that everyone in those groups has some kind of contractual understanding with the corporation, and none of them have property rights. That the shareholders aren’t, legally speaking, special.
I’m just some rube on the internet. I’m not really in a position to argue the fine points of corporate law. The author of this article, though, was.
It is a legal thing, shareholders own the corporation, but not the companies physical assets. So a shareholder couldn’t walk into a business and take something and say “I own this”. They can however vote to close a corporation or fire the board and form a new one.
The shareholders legally are special, but it doesn’t always work in their favor. For instance, they are the last to be paid.
I am no expert, but I have been an Executive Director in the past. I was just talking about the concept, which as you can tell, is pretty complex.