• GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s a link to an article about a legal case where the courts specifically stated this was not the case. In the legal realm, that is the equivalent of a peer review. And absolutely, unfettered capitalism pushes towards this outcome. That doesn’t make it a legal requirement.

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        They need continuous profit. The CEO swears an oath to shareholders to prioritize profit quarter after quarter ad infinitum.

        So root comment did.

        • null@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Needs = laws?

          They’ll oust a CEO who doesn’t fill that need. No legal action required.

          • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Ah, I see you read the article. Now we’re back at the start and you can continue to go in circles without me.

            • null@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Huh? You claimed that “need” = “law” – which is clearly nonsense.

              That’s where we are.