Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
They're publicly traded. I would hope this adversely affects the stock so shareholders may have standing for mismanagement and acting against shareholder interests.
Cool, very free market liberal and stuff. It's just that... you don't sue companies to affect their stock. That's entirely separate from the legal system and not civil liability at all.
Might not be why you do it.
Certainly suits can and do effect stock prices, based on investors perception of future gains. Both the direct cost of losing a suit (if it's big enough) and the indirect cost of losing business as a result, can cause this.
I really don't see either of those scenarios happening here. The investors know there's a monopoly situation and nothing will change until that changes
What suits?
We are losing the plot here. What lawsuit would you bring to these companies for doing this? As I said elsewhere, antitrust measures, maybe, but that's the government's job. These development companies complaining? Could be, but unlikely. There's probably legalese in their deals to cover this.
What is anybody here getting sued for and who is suing them? People are just saying things.
"You took away my porn by telling a big company that they couldn't manage payments of products made by a bunch of different tiny companies" is not a thing you can bring in front of a judge. Do we all realize this?
Do people on the Internet think that lawsuits are how you complain when you don't like something?
Well I wouldn't sue them myself.
Ibwas talking about the general link between suits and stock prices. Which I don't think is especially relevant in this case for the reasons you're talking about, and others
I upvoted you because in an idealistic world that would be true, but shareholders only care about the money.
And... it's a duopoly. What are you going to do, stop using Visa and MasterCard?
No practically and not right now. But people could make some easy adjustments to reduce their revenues at the very least.
So doesn't the ban actually hurt VISA and MasterCards bottom line?
In the way you spitting in the ocean hurts the landmass of Africa.