The fact that school pension systems, among others, are passively supporting this by refusing to divest is probably a bigger slap in society’s face than a single creep like Zuck abusing children for profit.
I disagree, divestment in profitable companies just rewards immoral investors. Plus Zuck has full voting control over Meta so shareholder’s votes mean nothing. I just want Zuck to be held accountable under the existing laws.
So you’re saying that you don’t want to miss out on any money that can be made from exploiting children?
Zuck may be at the top, but all of Meta violated the law, I assume as an investor you support this “cost of doing business” slap on the wrist because… Profits over everything, amirite?
So basically no consequences for Zuck abusing a generation of children for profit?
Zuck and Meta Investors.
The fact that school pension systems, among others, are passively supporting this by refusing to divest is probably a bigger slap in society’s face than a single creep like Zuck abusing children for profit.
I disagree, divestment in profitable companies just rewards immoral investors. Plus Zuck has full voting control over Meta so shareholder’s votes mean nothing. I just want Zuck to be held accountable under the existing laws.
So you’re saying that you don’t want to miss out on any money that can be made from exploiting children?
Zuck may be at the top, but all of Meta violated the law, I assume as an investor you support this “cost of doing business” slap on the wrist because… Profits over everything, amirite?
My argument is that regulation should be designed to prevent immoral behaviour. Otherwise you’re fundamentally taxing morality.