undefined | Better HN

0 pointsClumsyPilot2y ago0 comments

The side you are representing was trusted with safekeeping this information. They purposefully placed it into the jurisdiction where it is frequently, systematically stolen. They clearly did this to save a few bucks. Quite reasonably, some people are asking, why do they face no accountability for this decision.

You are coming up with excuses like "well they couldn't possibly be aware of information that was widely avaliable in mass media since 2010 at least.

Would you accept this sort of excuse if someone was in charge of safekeeping your child and they took your kid for a walk through an area known for violence and murder?

0 comments

emptysongglass2y ago

I can no longer follow your argument, sorry. This is blatantly moving goalposts to excuse theft and defend what exactly? Are you suggesting industrial theft at a mass scale is excusable because they knew the risks? That is the definition of victim-blaming.

ClumsyPilotOP2y ago

Shareholders are victims, executives are their agents that acted against shareholder’s long term interests.

Here is a better example; you trust the bank with your money, bank gets robbed. The criminals are gonna be criminals. But why is the bank vault made of cardboard, and why is the password ‘1234’? Imagine the same bank keeps getting robbed for 10 years, and they make no attempt to fix things.

Should the management still get their bonus? Should they be help to account? At some point you have to start asking if the bank management is in on the crime.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse