World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
As long as companies primary purpose is to make value for the shareholders, this will continue. It is a race to the bottom.
How do you fix that without massive upheaval for the people you are trying to help. I don't know.
Companies used to have a smaller reach, meaning less total and potential customers. So they had to balance what what was good for the shareholders qith what was good for the customers or risk losing both. But products are often global now, especially digital ones. There seems to always be more customers to replace the ones they lose. And investors don't care as much about the long term since they can trade stocks so quickly. Maybe the solution is required holding periods for stocks or something. Higher short term capital gains taxes, and better incentives for long term gains.
Government should be the balancing act in response to this. Regulations enforced by Governments.
That is a nice thought. But the government has never been "for" the people. And you can't reasonably expect people who are chosen by a popularity contest to be able to devise a way to provide that balance. It's not a required skill to get elected. And you can't expect the voters to know what real skills a polotician has. The spin and propaganda are just to effective at manipulating voter impressions. So it can't be the government...
Governments should be more or less thinktanks for the Nations issues. They're not expected to know all the answers, but collectively, they're in a position where they have access to the people who do. Ideally, they work together to solve a Nations issues.
What is the alternative if not government?
There is no alternative, but that doesn't mean we can reasonably expect our governments to do it. History says they won't. Humans need to evolve more in some directions before any group larger than can truely know each other can sustain working for the common good.
It won't stop until stocks are no longer a thing.
Honestly it seems like a bad idea to have stocks in the first place
Like a loan shark you can never get rid of.
Why does this even exist ?
I remember learning about the stock market in grade school and I thought it was stupid then and I think it's stupid now.
It's harmful in pretty much every way.
Stocks aren't necessarily a bad thing since they in theory represent abstract ownership of a thing. Perfectly fine when privately held, it becomes an increasingly problematic thing when. Traded on an open market though.
I think whenever stocks exist, regardless if private or public, the goal of the company becomes focused on increasingly profits instead of sustainability.
Not that non-traded companies don't want profits too. But the goal of "forever-increases" in profits will ultimately be destructive to a company as it will lead to lower quality, more exploitation, and intense focus on monopolizing their industry as that will be the only way to retain customers.
I think investing in companies is not really a bad thing. But it should be more like a set contract with an end date and/or amount.
More like a loan with interest. From a bank. Or how some contracts are made with movie actors and such.
A percentage of profits over a 10 year period or something.
Idk. There has to be a better way to do this.
The stock market has too much influence on the economy without bringing a benefit that surpasses the damage it does.
The nature of non-traded and private stocks can be debated for days, especially when you get into the minutiae of stuff like mining stocks for example where it can represent the payout to workers, investors, and owners at the end of a season. But what has made itself evident is that the stock market should not be allowed to exist as it is. Maybe it can be devolved back into resource stocks but that's just getting into your contract loan/payout idea.
This is the race to the bottom I mentioned. If one country doesn't allow stock in their companies to be bought, the companies can't make as much money. So they don't form as often or move. Then that country goes into a recession. Overall, it is the lack of a world wide coordinated effort to prevent the incentives to mortgage the future for gains today.
stock are great for the rich who don't have to lift a finger to pay a broker to put 1 mil into a stock and let it get to 2 mil in a couple years. With zero labor involved.
I'd say its one step worse than that. If you just wanted to return value to shareholders, the 2010s Facebook model of selling a few ads in between pictures of people's pets and graduation photos would work just fine. They could have churned this for decades unimpeded. And the less they fucked with the model, the more money they'd have made long term.
It isn't merely shareholder value that these companies crave, but perpetual double-digit growth in valuation. And, to that end, they're gutting the golden goose for a sudden spike in quarterly profits.
It isn't enough for Zuckerberg's company be valued at $100B. They needed to go for that fourth comma. So they started coming up with crazy - apparently impossible - ideas to reinvent themselves into... the Metaverse, where your whole OS is in VR! Diem (formerly Libra), the Killer Stablecoin! Whateverthefuck AI thing they're doing, to make human labor irrelevant!
Because they've bought into a notion of perpetual high speed growth through financialization. They cannot conceive of any kind of economic boundary or closed system. Like a deadly virus that spreads too quickly, they cannot see the edges of their population space or curb their basic impulse to consume.
So much of the drive towards AI is an insane quest to create a financial market without human customers. Just a big machine that sucks in investment capital and reports back a higher earnings figure.
It's increasingly divorced from any kind of material condition. And increasingly predicated on unfettered access to an unlimited pool of natural resources backed by an unchallenged Petrodollar.
So I will disagree on one point. If facebook stayed with just a few ads, that would not make value for the shareholders. Shareholders only make money if the stock price goes up, which requires people to buy it at the higher price. And if the company isn't growing double digits, buyers will go elsewhere. So the drive to produce shareholder value forces companies to chase the double digit growth or die. And shareholders want quick gains, so they can move on to the next company with double digit growth.
It's not the ceos who are the reason for all this. It's that all this causes boards to chose ceos that operate this way. People see that, and then aspire to do the same so they can be rich. This is why ceos spend so much time essentially marketing thier companies ideas. Thats how you get the stock price to go up. Buyers buy on the perception that a company is doing great things, or will. Reality doesn't often factor in like people think it does.
As for AI. They don't care about replacing humans. All they care about is a sales pitch that makes the stock price go up. If telling people that there software will replace humans does that, then that is what they will say. They don't let reality get in the way.
Artificial scarcity is its own driver of revenue. At that point, you're not competing for space on the screen, you're competing for number of people who see your content. "Do you want 5000 views or 50,000? Do you want them to see this once? Ten times in a month? Daily? That'll cost you extra."
The value of an ad has diminishing returns. One billboard on the side of the road attracts your eye. Ten in a big messy cluster get ignored.
Facebook could have leveraged this to command higher rates for their ad content, rather than trying to engage on sheer volume. Now the website is down the same rabbit hole as Yahoo.
The Founders trade out shares to partners who then occupy the board. Normally, one of the Founders is the original CEO, because they have a controlling stack in the firm. New board members are introduced by the founders and often have a personal relationship with them. And with stock swaps, the CEO of one company can sit on the board of another. Michael Dell sits on Broadcomm's board for this very reason.
Tesla's board is a classic example of this incestuous back-scratching. Robyn Denholm moved from CFO of Juniper Networks - a major supplier for Tesla - to the audit committee chair of Tesla (and yehaw, what a job that must have been, given their shady business practices). She also is an operating partner at Blackbird Ventures, a venture capital firm which is a major investor in xAI, another of Musk's pet startups.
Once you climb to the top of these hierarchies (or you start getting into seriously investing in any of them) you start noticing these circular networks of leadership and trade. The Oracle / OpenAI / Nvidia circuit is another great example.
The very real and explicit and demonstrated belief among these tech billionaires is that they can automate away the need for humans - both as labor and as clients. They're building (or, at least, trying to build) a financial closed loop.
I agree with you about the circular networks of leadership on boards. But they do still have to answer to the hedge funds and such that have large stakes in the company, and can tank the stock price by selling suddenly. And they also have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, who can and do sue. But my point was that the boards chose CEOs that favor the short term. And because of that, more people who want to be ceos try to follow that pattern.
As for the replacing humans. I just don't think they care about that as much as making money. Myevidence is that they aren't idiots. They know AI as it is today isn't going to replace humans. But saying it will boosts thier stock price.
:-/
Remove shareholders from the equation.
It can change, but it'll require a large number of people seeing it as a problem worth addressing. Companies currently don't value customer experience very well and haven't for a long time, witness how phone customer service has become loaded with automated services standing between users and a small phone support staff. But if that were change, if stockholders were to come to see how much users hate that, and more importantly if users were to base their habits on that decision, it might cause things to improve. Money people, despite their near-legendary density, tend to be very nervous about trends. It might be possible to spook them.
Well, I think it could happen. I've been wrong before.
It's tough, the companies can't change unless the people do. Meaning customers refusing to do business with companies that have bad customer service or refusing to buy stocks in such companies. But there will always be people who see that they can make money off of other people doing that. And it doesn't work if some people get rich bucking the trend.
Companies very well can change. Nothing forces them to enshittify their customer service for what amounts to virtual pennies per user. It's entirely a case of narrative capture among business people, the conventional wisdom that they have to do this stupid thing. That's it.
Unfortunately, that just isn't true. The board of directors have a legal fiduciary responsibility to the share holders. And they hire or fire the ceo. If they don't chase that virtual pennies, the shareholder can, and do sue them.
And as I said, if they don't do things that at least make it appear they are attempting to increase profits, shareholder will sell, and they will go out of business.
It's a race to the bottom. And the system is to blame. The system has rewarded people who enshitify products, and thus it has shapped who gets hired to make those decisions.
It's because those shareholders are captive to that same narrative. These practices do carry a real cost, but executives have made themselves blind to it. There are people who's job it is to judge the value of customer satisfaction and loyalty and to measure it against the cost of providing good service, and they think the former is less valuable than the latter. My premise is these people are not doing their job well.
This view of the purpose of a company, to ruthlessly extract every cent of value from a company or else face the wrath of shareholders, it's a fairly recent view. Shareholders selling doesn't cause a company to go out of business, failing at that business does. Stock price falling is a different issue, it matters because company success has come to mean the success of its shares more than the amount of customer goodwill. But that matters.
I sense though that we really aren't on different sides. I wouldn't say you're absolutely wrong, nor that I'm absolutely right. We both have profound dissatisfaction with this world that all these rapacious companies have build around us. The next generation of business people, if we're privileged to even have one, will have to figure out some things for themselves all over again.
I do agree we seem to be on the same side.
Semantics is a bit of a passion of mine. The question I think we differ on the answer to, is wnat is an executives job. I wish it was what you appear to believe. But at the nd of the day, they are there to make money. And helping the stock price makes money for the people above them, who in turn will ensure they are employed in the future. Including at a different company.
And true, a falling stock price does not but a company put of business, that was a poor choice of words. It causes it to get bought by someone else, and either disolved or absorbed. So I guess maybe extinct is a better word. It certainly is more fun.
Please consider: it at executive's job is only to make money, then why would any executive do anything but chase the single most source of maximum profit, which right now is obviously scamming people and courting Trump's favor to get out of consequences? Who would care about building anything real? How could they? Just chase hollow bets and game the system as far as you can?
You can complain about capitalism, and indeed there are many problems with it, but I think you should realize that today's hyper rapacious version of it is not historical, it's a fairly recent interpretation of the law. A company is more, MUST be more than a single minded profit making engine. If it always had been, our civilization would have collapsed long before now.
I think the balancing factor is that customers sometimes identify the executives and latch on to their activites. Like the theranos lady, and the martin guy who raised the price of some medication. Essentially going viral like they did really slows down a career. So they are held a bit in check. And similar before as well. The mechanism was a bit different, but the people and the customers held them in check much more before. That was because most companies had a smaller customer base. So it was easier for customer sentiment to cause them real issues.
The other case is the one you pointed out. Founders. Companies who's founders still own a majority have limits to how much they will tarnish their creation. Each founder is different, but on the whole, they usually are more constrained than a CEO brought in by non-founders.
And in many cases, they do simply scam people. Usually by selling them a product that takes thier data. So they get paid for the product, and then again for the data. And they also start pushing ads. Take roku. You pay for it, but they have added ads that weren't there when you first bought it. That is an obvious scam. Take car rental companies. They will take your reservation, make you pay up front sometimes, and they know they won't have the vehicle you reserved a certain % of the time. But they don't care. And they won't compensate you other then to give you something you didn't reserve (if your lucky) and claim it is an upgrade. Health insurance... you pay them, they do everything they can to intentionally put barriers between you and what you paid for. Airlines... clickbait scam sites. Phone companies, who can know who is really calling you, but won't bother to stop them from impersonating other numbers because the scammer generate money for the phone company as well. Amazon who raises the price and then claims a thing is on sale when it is actually more expensive during the big sale.
The list goes on and on. Heck, ever read your employment contract. Mine basically says they reserve the right to change the rules unilaterally such that I am in breach of contract. And thats standard apparently (I asked a lawyer). That shouldn't even be a legal contract.
A company isn't a person. It will only act like one when it is in it's own self interest. And the pressure that the populace used to be able to apply to keep it in check is getting less and less effective.
And last, most of them do pay tribute to trump if he takes notice of them. Others just try to stay out of his sight. But how many immediately cancelled all dei training and such as soon as he took office. Without even specifically being asked.
Well that can go either way. Mark Zuckerberg, for example, wasted billions on his cockamamie Metaverse idea, and even named the company after it.
Can't, as I am fully self-employed, much to my dismay when it comes time to file taxes in the US.
Ideally that wouldn't hold up in court, although of course the burden is on you to prove it if it goes that far, yay.
Oh yes, I know. We must remember everyone who did that, they should not be allowed to live it down, ever.
Well, zuck wasting the money though wasn't enshitification. He really believed it was the future. And he wanted in early. Honestly, that kind of leadership is what we need more of. Innovation. He just also enshitifies the rest of the company's products to pay for it. So we need, the inovative part of zuck, and not the rest.
And on my contract, you are right, it "might" not hold up in court. But they know I won't have the means to challenge it. I know know one guy who did challenge a big company on an employment issue. He had a lot of money, no kids, and was well past the point when he could have retired. He spent about 10 years, a ton of money, and a ton of his time. He was traveling to various places to attempt to meet with government officials that would take his calls and such. He practically got a law degree for the amount of time he studied law. In the end, he had to take a settlement of some sort. His goal had always been to hold them accountable for ehat they did, not to get money. But it became obvious no matter how much proof he had of age discrimination, he was never going to win the cause. Their pockets were just too deep. And the system itself was made with roadblocks like needing some federal labor board type things review, yet the board didn't have enough people appointed for quroum becuase they had to be approved by congress. So it litteraly could not do the review or whatever. In the end I think he just got too old to fight anymore, and money was running low.
Zuckerberg wasn't early though, in many ways he was late. Virtual worlds have been tried many times, with varying degrees of success. Second Life is still hanging on. His fault was trying to make it, somehow, a business think, when it should obviously be a gaming thing. Zuckerberg has never been an innovator. He was a geek who got lucky, had a round of mythologizing about him, and got a sweetheart deal in Facebook's IPO that he could never be ousted no matter what stupid decisions he made, otherwise he'd be long gone over his Metaverse fiasco.
Well business is where the money is at. So that part makes sense. And while it wasn't completely new, building on something that already exists is still innovation. Most things are built on something else. I'm not sayi g he is an amazing innovator or anything. But what he tried to do was better than just buying more competitors and shutting them down while shoving more and more ads in people's faces. So, innovation lite. Lol.
Eh, if you define it that way then almost anything is innovation.
But innovation, even at the low bar you define it at, for its own sake is useless. It has to do something substantive, or else it's just more noise.
I think of innovation more like following ideas instead of money. Money is almost always involved, but somewhere there is a hard to define line between doing something innovative that will also make money, and doing something innovative to make money.
Butt right now, we have a lot of companies that just do what other companies have done to make more money from their existing products. Putting in more ads isn't innovative.