• PuddleOfKittens@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      There’s an argument that if the fine is ‘too high’, then it causes wonky behavior towards liability - facing a $100M fine, Organisations have a massive incentive to deny any knowledge of it and be unwilling to take preventative measures. To be fair, I’m talking about city councils here, who (at least notionally) already have a motivation to treat their locals well. It might not translate well to corporations.

      I’m not saying fines should be capped, I’m saying it’s a tradeoff that is sometimes not worth it.

      • MNByChoice
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        You raise a great point.

        Capped implies a “no matter how bad, it will only cost X”.

        Infinitely high fines implies “murder everyone, no one must know what happened”.

        Fines with multipliers for badness, as we do in the criminal code (maybe this is an argument against), implies “yes, this is bad. It will get far worse”.

        OTOH, there are other options.

        • charge company leadership with crimes for violations.

        • a corporate death penalty

        Etc

          • taladar@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            At this point I would say I am 99% sure they shouldn’t. They are basically all the things that AGI scaremongers always warn us about when they talk of systems influencing society with a completely inhuman decision-making process only without the computer part.

  • Drusas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m with you on this, but the title is no good. Putting the colon like that implies that Amazon admitted as much.