[larsrc]

I've long thought that that is one of the main functions of corporations. There's a reason they're called limited liability. The fact that you can conjure up new companies at a whim makes it easy to shuffle responsibility into an obscure corner.

This is a strong reason that corporations should not be considered people. People are long-lived entities with accountability and you can't just create or destroy them at will.

[7952]

At a more basic level money eliminates the need for social obligation. There is no expectation of reciprocity or mutual respect. You pay for a product, it is delivered and that is the end of it. Corporations do this within their own internal economy or with partner companies. A cost centre pays an amount of money and delegates responsibility.

[swayvil]

Enjoying the benefits of living in a society (a degree of trust, no deadly combat, services like police) without suffering its liabilities (mandatory politeness and respect).

It's the profitable course.

[627467]

I agree with the feeling, but State orgs are effectively eternal (think the various level of government) and still great at diffusing accountability to various scapegoats

[lesuorac]

State orgs (and federal ones) often have length processes before they can do stuff though.

As well as after they do something there is typically a recourse path provided by that org for you to protest their decisions and if that doesn't resolve favorable you can also sue them.

Which differs from the article because the corporation doesn't provide any protest path nor did it have to publish any memo/etc describing how they're going to downsize cleaning for cost-savings. But you can still sue them (but good luck showing damages over an unclean room)!

[InsideOutSanta]

"the corporation doesn't provide any protest path"

This. The problem with "voting with your wallet" is that you can't vote "no", you can only vote "yes" or abstain from voting altogether.

[f1shy]

That can be said of many many democracies around the world.

[arp242]

> I've long thought that that is one of the main functions of corporations.

Ambrose Bierce already hit the nail on the head in 1911:

"Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility."

It has long since baffled me this isn't being talked about more – I guess everyone is just so used to it. As far as I'm concerned the entire concept of "fining a company" should be abolished and replaced with the criminal persecution of those who did the illegal thing.

[izacus]

Just to be clear, LLC is supposed to be about limited financial liability, not criminal liability. But we seem to have forgotten that on the way.

[atoav]

The buck has to stop somewhere and a human has to be responsible for things.

[rwmj]

Oh sweet summer child. Companies are frequently structured and created in multiple jurisdictions to obscure beneficial ownership, responsibility, profits and taxes.

[atoav]

What I said is how it should be, not how it is.

[RandomLensman]

Limited liability corporations are a relatively new concept and there is certainly scope to change how/when/where they could be created and run, for example.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I recently had to submit a copy of my drivers license to the feds, for my LLC. I have heard that they are working on the accountability shield for LLCs.

[tucnak]

> People are long-lived entities with accountability and you can't just create or destroy them at will.

This notion is currently being contested

[InsideOutSanta]

Yeah, this dysfunction is not a bug, it's the feature. In some ways, it's useful, because it allows positive risk-taking that could not be taken if anyone was actually held (or even just felt) accountable. But at this point, as a society, we've shifted too far towards enabling accountability-free behavior from corporations.

I think a good example of the dichotomy here is Starlink. On one hand, it's an incredibly useful service that often has a positive impact. On the other hand, a private corporation is just polluting our low earth orbit with thousands of satellites.

It's not clear to me where exactly the right balance for something like this should be, but I do think that as of today, we're too far on the lessez-faire side.

[dale_glass]

> I think a good example of the dichotomy here is Starlink. On one hand, it's an incredibly useful service that often has a positive impact. On the other hand, a private corporation is just polluting our low earth orbit with thousands of satellites.

Seems like a terrible example to me. I'm no fan of Musk, but I don't see how that is "polluting".

They provide an excellent service. They're a minor hindrance for astronomy, true, but I think it would be hard to make a good case for that a few people having a good view of the sky is more important than millions having good communications.

Then there's that there's nothing really special about Starlink. It's merely one of the first users of cheap rocket launches. It could be somebody else, or 1000 different entities launching smaller numbers, in the end the effect on astronomy would be the same.

[InsideOutSanta]

"Then there's that there's nothing really special about Starlink"

I didn't say there was, and this isn't about Musk. I'm just using Starlink as an example, my point is not about Starlink.

"I don't see how that is polluting"

Starlink satellites create light pollution and disrupt radio frequencies. Astronomers are already running into issues with research due to the light from Starlink satellites. There's also the issue of reentry. We now have a Starlink reentry almost every single day, which is at least damaging to the ozone layer, and very likely causing other issues.

But like I said, this is not about Starlink. It's just an example to illustrate accountability sinks having both positive and negative effects.

[dale_glass]

I don't think it works at all, no.

There's no accountability sink to speak of here. "Accountability sink" in the article's meaning means that accountability got obscured, something bad happened (eg, lies on TV, terrible customer service), yet nobody can be clearly blamed for giving the order.

Here, it's Musk's invention, and he's clearly to blame for it. In fact Musk has a propensity to take more credit than he deserves, so it's almost the opposite from a sink really.

[InsideOutSanta]

Musk is not accountable for Starlink. Starlink is an LLC, a limited liability company. There is no single person who is accountable for Starlink's satellites.

[TJSomething]

The chief difference here is that you can plausibly point at every investor in Starlink and say if they have the slightest idea of Starlink's business plan, they know that causes light pollution. There is exactly one degree of separation from putting satellites in the sky to causing light pollution. There's no plausible deniability there.

This article is more about the phenomenon where decisions are removed by multiple degrees. The locus of decision making is either obscured or non-existent, creating plausible deniability. This is often done by rewarding activities that don't obviously create harm but nevertheless require causing harm to carry out.

[marci]

Astronomy isn't the only issue with space pollution (e.g: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome)

[ernst_klim]

Sorry but I find your example totally wrong. Things like radio frequencies and space launches are hard regulated by govs, no corporation can launch satellites at will without permission from the government(s).

[InsideOutSanta]

Doesn't that apply to all companies? They have to follow the laws. Accountability sinks exist orthogonal to that.