Section230 repeal (to have more censorship), both sides seem to want it in Congress (at least the lack of reliability). Current grandstanding, maybe even support, but we'll regret where it goes, which is more censorship. Scapegoating, moral panic, chance to grandstand?
Instead of having lots of small players, you have a handful, so it's easier to blame or attack them. ‘If you apply a very small error rate to a very large number (3.5b monthly), even if you say .01% error rate, that’s 3m unintended consequences. A law of large numbers. In China they mandate what products (mostly video games) children can use and how many hours per day.
Every time there's an alleged harm, a bully whateer, they're going to try to pin it on SM, to show that they consumed something that led or contributed to this. Disproportionate relative to harm.
There's linups around the world to sue these companies if we let them be sued. Flood of litigation. The companies will have to content moderate even stricter, just as a corporate act. ‘That Republican content caused a situation that caused this harm’ so they censor more of it.
Do you think there will still be conversations online about gun ownership enthusiasm (or even second amendment rights)? or will it result every time in a plaintiffs lawsuit every time there's a shooting, not going after the person who made the post, but the platform.
Lawyers looking at all that money they could extract, and their fees is 10 or 20% of $100s of millions. Bringing bullying, sexual cases to jury trials and they're going to think they're ‘on the right side of history.’ There will be lawyers specialized in this kind of case. Funded cases by hedgefunds.
The rules on the field were X and people were trying to follow those rules.
Elon ruled against in pay compensation package completion
The company went up $50b. When Elon negotiated, no one thought he could hit all these things. They've 10xed. He got no guaranteed compensation, but instead he only got any compensation if he hit ‘crazy’ milestones. Decent or good performance wouldn't have got him anything. TSLA had the largest short position ever. He had tried 3 CEOs and thought none would be able to do it. He was sleeping on the factory floor. So massively positively affected shareholders. The deal was a win-win. 73 or 80% of shareholders approved the deal. It's the deal most shareholders of any company would want. Most CEOs would not take this deal. Most CEOs have compensation packages counter to shareholder value, and instead they raise debt, increasing the enterprise value by loading up on debt, and then do repurchase plans. Debt doesn't do good for shareholders but it does for CEO. Wile Elon spent the last 5 years making TSLA go 10x.
A shareholder (9 shares) ('the nameplace for the lawfirm going after Elon') sued and won that the pay package didn't go through (Elon can appeal).
Delaware had highly predictable governance, but now maybe not, said Chamath.
Will ‘100%’ have a ripple effect on how CEOs do their contracts. They will want something totally gameable where they have 90% support on the surface. EPS targets for CEOs (Elon did it on pure profit and performance) meaning debt). What companies will chose Delaware?
Is this part of Biden's ‘We gotta get this guy’ thing? Sacks asked. Delaware is a Biden state. FCC is spending $15k per person to do wireless internet when Starlink would cost them 1500. Why? And they're gonna go out and buy Starlink while they're waiting anyway.
Lawyers may take $19b of the plaintiff's winnings as a fee, by far the largest gain for lawyers in the Delaware Chancery Court history.
Musk may reincorporate in Texas, but they would have to pay corporate tax rather than 0 corporate tax in Delaware but like $250k in a fee.
For a pay contract to work for a CEO there has to be a possibility of pain as well as gain, otherwise, like the megagrants of CEOs in the past, they will just think about how rich (very rich or more rich than that) their pay will be. Patrick Boyle highlighted.
Vince McMahon’s resignation from TKO ‘not enough’: Attorney - YouTubeShe was late 30s, he was sending sexualized content of her around without complaint from her, and now years later she ‘wants to end the culture of cooercive control’ where ‘she feld imprisoned.’
Don't we need some nice clear and hard definitions of what can be illegal treatment? or it could be on the other side, a constitutional protection or a law against being slandered in a lawsuit for treatment that was accepted at the time. Howver, that might not be beneficial to lawyers who make a lot off this ambiguity.