[y-c-o-m-b]

All of which is meaningless if it's not reflected properly in their legal documents/terms. I've had interactions with the Flock CEO here on Hacker News and he also tried to reassure us that nothing fishy is/was going on. Take it with a grain of salt.

[shimman]

Why anyone would trust the executives at any company when they are only incentivized to lie, cheat, and steal is beyond me. It's a lesson every generation is hellbent on learning again and against and again.

It use to be the default belief, throughout all of humanity, on how greed is bad and dangerous; yet for the last 100 years you'd think the complete opposite was the norm.

[godelski]

  > when they are only incentivized to lie, cheat, and steal

The fact that they are allowed to do this is beyond me.

The fact that they do this is destructive to innovation and I'm not sure why we pretend it enables innovation. There's a thousands multi million dollar companies that I'm confident most users here could implement, but the major reason many don't is because to actually do it is far harder than what those companies build. People who understand that an unlisted link is not an actual security measure, that things need to actually be under lock and key.

I'm not saying we should go so far as make mistakes so punishable that no one can do anything but there needs to be some bar. There's so much gross incompetence that we're not even talking about incompetence; a far ways away from mistakes by competent people.

We are filtering out those with basic ethics. That's not a system we should be encouraging

[judahmeek]

Because the liars who have already profited from lying will defend the current system.

The best fix that we can work on now in America is repealing the 17th amendment to restrengthen the federal system as a check on populist impulses, which can easily be manipulated by liars.

[touristtam]

So your senators were appointed before that? No election needed?

[bitwize]

Yes, by state legislatures. The concept was the Senate would reflect the states' interests, whereas the House would reflect the people's interests, in matters of federal legislation.

[throwaway2037]

For those unaware, the German Federal democratic system works in a similar way. They have two houses: the Bundestag (directly elected) and the Bundesrat (appointed by state legistatures). As a outsider, their democracy appears to be very high functioning, which demonstrates this form of democracy can work well.

[godelski]

  > Because the liars who have already profited from lying will defend the current system.

Okay? And so we just have to deal with it? Give up? Throw in the towel? Not push back?

  > repealing the 17th amendment

Did you read your first sentence?

*By your own logic,* the liars who have already profited from lying will appoint those who will help them defend the current system.

[shimman]

lol what the fuck, no. Can't believe you look at the current system and think "you know what, political parties should be able to choose senators not the citizens." Good lord.

[parineum]

> It use to be the default belief, throughout all of humanity, on how greed is bad and dangerous

And what used to be the default beliefs on rape and slavery?

[jeffybefffy519]

Yup exactly, if this is the truth then put it on the terms/privacy policy etc... exec's say anything these days with zero consequences for lieing in a public forum.

[nashashmi]

Can a ceo's word on linkedin and X be used to make claims against them?

[parineum]

Anything a publicly traded company would state that would lead to a person making a decision to buy or sell stock would be subject to FTC regulations.

[nashashmi]

And if it is not a publicly traded company? Can the CEO in question making statements and assurances on a forum or linkedin or X in communication with a user cause the company to be in a binding position?

Or would it be an empty promise?

[throwaway2037]

Absolutely. I don't know what legal jurisdiction they are subject to, but I could imagine that someone tries to sue an EU division/outpost in an EU court under a GPDR-type of petition, these posts would be submitted as evidence. One could easily argue the CEO is acting on behalf of the company by posting using their real name. (Let's presume there is no identity fraud for these posts.)

And don't forget that Elon Musk was tried in the US for defamation after making a bunch of posts on Twitter against some UK citizens. Assuming that you are posting under your real name, you are definitely legally responsible for those words.