Sensitive subjects.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/6745228

TLDR: Apple wants to keep china happy, Stewart was going after china in some way, Apple said don’t, Stewart walked, the show is dead.

Not surprising at all, but sad and shitty and definitely reduces my loyalty to the platform. Hosting Stewart seemed like a real power play from Apple, where conflict like this was inevitable, but they were basically saying, yes we know, but we believe in things and, as a big company with deep pockets that can therefore take risks, to prove it we’re hosting this show.

Changing their minds like this is worse than ever hosting the show in the first place as it shows they probably don’t know what they’re doing or believe in at all, like any big company, and just going for what seems cool, and undermining the very idea of a company like Apple running a streaming platform. I wonder if the Morning Show/Wars people are paying close attention.

  • @Lauchs@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5•1 year ago

    It’s frustrating but very much a real thing. You might google “fiduciary duty to shareholders.” Basically, once a company is public, the board has to act in the best interests of the shareholders (which means maximizing returns and/or shareprice.)

    This is terrible for the world but pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t help.

      • @Lauchs@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0•1 year ago

        I would re-read that article a bit more closely. The point they’re making is that recently there have been developments such that maximizing profits is not seen as the SOLE principle behind decision making above all else.

        For example, they cite Hobby Lobby which has Christian practices that doubtless cut into profits but are allowed as part of the company’s mission.

        But my apologies, a more accurate phrasing would’ve been duty to shareholders and the company.

        Still, unless Apple has a really interesting company charter, annoying a capricious manufacturer of almost everything the company needs that is ALSO one of the world’s largest markets, well, not that tough a multi billion dollar decision.

      • @Lauchs@lemmy.worldEnglish
        -1•1 year ago

        Duty is a legal concept, silly Billy.

        You can commit a crime by violating a duty. A common one of which you’ve probably heard is “duty of care” I.e., a doctor can be charged with a crime by not fulfilling their duty of care to a patient.

        https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/breach-of-duty/

        I almost want to look up confidently incorrect. Just maybe learn from this and try googling when you are unfamiliar with a term, you look less silly!

          • @Lauchs@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2•1 year ago

            You’re getting confused or you might not actually understand how companies work, so I’ll break it down.

            There is no law forcing a company to profit. (Though Companies are generally formed for that purpose.) A private organization could do whatever it wants within legal bounds. (This is how non profits, charitable foundations etc exist.)

            But, what happens next is many companies go “public” by selling shares. In essence, they put a percentage of themselves on the market and people by shares in that company, such that they, legally speaking, own a tiny percentage of that company. Part of that purchase is that the company now has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. As noted before, a duty is a legal concept like assault, negligence etc. And I explained fiduciary duty earlier, you can look through.

            Here is kind of a classic example of a company losing a case because its directors breached their fiduciary duty to minority shareholders:

            https://casetext.com/case/ebay-domestic-holdings-v-newmark

              • @Lauchs@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0•1 year ago

                lol I’m almost impressed by the brute force of your refusal to comprehend.

                It’s uhhh, impressive.

                By your logic/refusal to understand how simple things work, a doctor has no duty to help you, no company is at fault if its products harm you and a lawyer can do whatever they want to maximize their own profit.

                • @Rhoeri@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  0•1 year ago

                  Show me the “legal responsibility to maximize profits” in the law books and the police codes used to enforce said laws or STFU.

                  You know what? Nevermind.

                  • @Lauchs@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1•1 year ago

                    You mean like I already did?

                    You’re getting confused or you might not actually understand how companies work, so I’ll break it down.

                    There is no law forcing a company to profit. (Though Companies are generally formed for that purpose.) A private organization could do whatever it wants within legal bounds. (This is how non profits, charitable foundations etc exist.)

                    But, what happens next is many companies go “public” by selling shares. In essence, they put a percentage of themselves on the market and people by shares in that company, such that they, legally speaking, own a tiny percentage of that company. Part of that purchase is that the company now has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. As noted before, a duty is a legal concept like assault, negligence etc. And I explained fiduciary duty earlier, you can look through.

                    Here is kind of a classic example of a company losing a case because its directors breached their fiduciary duty to minority shareholders:

                    https://casetext.com/case/ebay-domestic-holdings-v-newmark

                    Why do you think people buy shares? Just fans of three digits and numbers that change?

                    Edit: Italicized the relevant section to make things easier for you.