It’s not actually law and that’s just what companies want to be the belief for them behaving reprehensibly
Garnish2087
- 0 Posts
- 4 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
Cake day: February 25th, 2026
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Garnish2087@fedinsfw.appto
Technology@lemmy.world•How to burst the AI bubble: Strike at its roots. Sci-fi author/tech journalist Cory Doctorow on his new book, The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI.English
7·26 days agoIf you’ve read this post or kept up with his blog occasionally the book treads familiar grounds. I sill think it’s worth the read to have a condensed version.
Doctorow guides you through understanding the AI bubble by proving you don’t need to know the technical jargon or latest developments. All you need to have as a guiding framework is “what technology (actually) does and who it does it to.”
Garnish2087@fedinsfw.appto
Canada@lemmy.ca•Chinese EVs arrive on Canadian soil as federal memo warns of privacy risks (archive.org link)English
20·2 months agoGee sure would be nice if it weren’t against the law to properly look into the software and reverse engineer it so that couldn’t be a problem

Yes, I believe you’re interpreting that page incorrectly. Fiduciary duties are law bindings for specific relationships and situations not applicable for all publicly traded companies to all shareholders.
I believe you’re confusing that idea with the theory of shareholder supremacy that’s a claim, popularized by the likes of Jack Welch to support their actions.
The background comes from Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. in 1919 which stated
and the interpretation has been quite debated.