from Hacker News

Big Tech has already made enough money in 2024 to pay all its 2023 fines

by olestr on 1/8/24, 11:53 AM with 158 comments

by kmlx on 1/8/24, 1:27 PM
from the article:
> As of seven days and three hours into 2024, they had already earned enough revenue to pay it all off.
revenue is not the same as profit. this is basic stuff.
from the same article:
> Still, revenue is a more accurate depiction of a company’s size and profitability.
it seems like this is rookie hour.
then we look at the author's previous posts:
https://proton.me/blog/big-tech-ipef With new trade deal, Big Tech wants to be above the law
https://proton.me/blog/big-tech-bigger-fines Why we need bigger fines for Big Tech
got it. there is an axe to grind.
by tokai on 1/8/24, 1:30 PM
The only way to tackle this is to put leadership in prison. If that is not possible give them the oligarch experience; frozen assets, interpol warrant, etc.
It makes no sense that breaking the law gives milder consequences just as long as your crime is transnational and very extensive in scope.
by hliyan on 1/8/24, 12:46 PM
Either the fines need to be high enough until there is a material impact to shareholders, or natural persons who make decisions within the corporation needs to be held accountable (not just the legal person), OR, we need to fundamentally rethink what a corporation's charter must necessarily include (in addition to shareholder returns).
by bitshiftfaced on 1/8/24, 1:12 PM
Shareholders care more about net profit than revenue. Using revenue makes the number more clickbaity. Also, you claim this isn't a deterrent, but you don't explain why. How do we know that tech companies weren't just well-behaved last year? Or, should one week's revenue never ever be able to pay off a company's past year's fines, and we should always assume tech companies are more evil than that?
by spiffytech on 1/8/24, 1:07 PM
Should this be measuring against profit, not revenue?
Edit: "This" meaning the claim that they've made enough to pay back fines, not how those fines are decided.
by nickysielicki on 1/8/24, 1:42 PM
It's so easy to tell when Europe is voting on a post versus the US. Fines against these companies are predominantly rent seeking. You should be extra suspicious when the fines are coming from countries where they don't have offices.
FTA:
> Big Tech companies can further water down the potential sting of these fines by delaying payment for years(new window). They’ve done this by filing appeals, counter-suing, or simply refusing to pay. Some notable examples include:
Sorry, but I give the companies the benefit of the doubt here: they have good legal teams and don't generally fight things when they can't win. Fighting these fines isn't evidence that big tech is evil and refuses to follow the low, it's evidence that these countries are rent seeking by charging them bogus fines, which their world-class legal teams (rightly) contest.
by iamleppert on 1/8/24, 1:17 PM
The fines should be measured in units of time, not % of revenue, or some fixed dollar number. All other measures can be gamed, except time. For example, Meta would think twice about violating privacy if they were suspended from doing business for a month, or their fine amounted to a month of revenue with definite start and end dates.
We already do the same thing with people (taking away their freedom for lengths of time), it’s time to have the same punishments for corrupt corporations.
Shutting down their operations completely for lengths of time would also have other consequences besides financial.
by djoldman on 1/8/24, 12:54 PM
This article makes a good point comparing the relatively small magnitude of fines paid to revenue earned. It follows that perhaps fines are not deterring.
Perhaps a stronger deterrent would be injunction-based: companies found to be in violation of regulations and laws might be enjoined completely from operating in a commercial space. "One strike and you're out."
by postingawayonhn on 1/8/24, 1:30 PM
Isn't this to be expected?
I probably made enough money to pay all my 2023 fines by midday on January 1st.
by amadeuspagel on 1/8/24, 2:16 PM
That's terrible. After all, the purpose of fines is to bankrupt companies for the emotional benefit of angry and resentful people, and not to discourage certain behaviour in proportion to how bad it actually is.
by bmulyadi on 1/8/24, 1:50 PM
If we convert the metric to net income
| Alphabet | 4 days 20 hrs 6 mins |
| Amazon | 1 day 12 hrs 58 mins |
| Apple | 0 day 18 hrs 14 mnins |
| Meta | 18 days 17 hrs 19 mins |
| Microsoft | 0 day 9 hrs 4 mins |
Total: 26 days 5 hrs 40 mins
by freitzkriesler2 on 1/8/24, 1:07 PM
This literally doesn't matter. these fines are literally "fun taxes" to deep pockets.
Make them hurt otherwise it won't stop.
by jpeeler on 1/8/24, 4:22 PM
Not to direct attention away from the issue at hand, but how do these collected fines get used? I can't help but wonder with such exorbitant sums of money if some organization secretly does not want these fines to go away...
by rpmisms on 1/8/24, 12:53 PM
Instead of fines, it should be forced price reductions.
by charlieyu1 on 1/8/24, 12:59 PM
Day 7 is 2% of the year. Is it not enough deterrent? If my portfolio is missing 2% growth per year I’d be pretty worrying
by lakomen on 1/8/24, 1:37 PM
Revenue isn't profits
by jongjong on 1/8/24, 1:14 PM
The concept of a corporation is fundamentally unjust. It doesn't make sense that there are entities which have more rights than people.
If I do a crime, I go to jail. If a corporation does a crime, they only need to pay a small fine.
Not to mention that they have many thousands of people working for them doing crimes on their behalf for which are never caught and never punished. Just the scale of a corporation, makes it impossible to prevent crime. They are crime factories by design.
If a nation state kills someone, it's not called murder. If a corporation commits fraud, it's not called fraud... So long as they don't run out of money.
Corporations can influence laws in ways that I can't. I can't even talk to a politician.
Corporations have far better access to government contracts and the tender process than regular citizens. There is subtle, but harmful corruption constantly taking place behind the scenes.
Not only that, but the people who work for corporations are, to some extent, shielded from the crimes that they commit on behalf of corporations as it limits their liability by design, not to mention all the opportunities for cover ups and deflection of liability that they provide. It absorbs and neutralizes liability. Nobody ends up taking responsibility. The crimes keep getting more frequent; corporations keep finding people who are more and more desperate and willing to commit crimes on their behalf. People create shell companies just to launder borrowed money to corporations, in the hope that they will get a well paid corporate job from them after their shell company runs out of money... The list of schemes/crimes is endless and beyond my imagination.
The first corporations ended up bankrupt. E.g. Both Dutch and British East India Company, South Sea Company, Mississippi Company... They ALL turned into bubbles and collapsed spectacularly, every single time. That was before the fiat monetary system came along and started propping them all up... Now the scam never ends. The entire economy is fully monopolized by these proven scam constructs. They suck up all opportunities and produce cheap, low quality products... but because they take away opportunities from everyone, nobody who isn't a corporate shareholder has surplus income and are therefore forced to buy cheap, low quality corporate products.