Corporation greed is real.
Corporations are not people. Workers are people.
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
89 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37719 readers
380 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Tell that to Citizens United v. FEC.
Sadly, Citizens United is just one of the most obvious manifestations of the Capitalist mindset that equates wealth to meritoriousness.
People will unironically say things like, "if you want healthcare, get a job", as though a lack of money negates your right to life. No surprise people think entities with wealth deserve more rights.
Citizens United is a bad ruling that was a big win for Republicans. And workers and people without money lost.
Mitt Romney: "Corporations are people, my friend."
Microsoft basically tied with Apple for the title of richest company in the world, by the way.
its never enough. capitalism needs serious taxing and regulation to not be objectively disgusting.
but it feels like this experiment is over
If a system requires constant guardrails that run directly counter to its core tenets, that probably just means the system is bad, and you should go with one whose tenets are in-line with said guardrails.
this is nonsense
all isms need governance always or they cant be stable. youre basically saying 'if your system needs rules to survive, it shouldnt' when systems are defined by their rules.
if your core tenant is to fuck everyone over at all costs, i guess you might have a point.
all isms need governance always or they cant be stable
Where did I say anything about not having guardrails/ regulation/ governance? I said that if the guardrails run counter to the underlying system's core tenets, that is indicative the tenets are bad, to wit:
to fuck everyone over [to extract value] at all costs
That is Capitalism in a nutshell. Nothing within Capitalism as a doctrine calls for limits to be placed upon value-generation in favor of protecting people.
Contrast this to other systems, (even free market ones like Mutualism where regulation is not present) where an asymmetrical concentration of power is considered inimical or even contradictory to the system's tenets. Asymmetrical wealth and influence structures will always emerge even in those systems, but those systems are intended, from the ground up, to counter that, as opposed to Capitalism which intrinsically encourages and rewards that imbalance.
They keep worrying about a recession - and then do things like layoffs which cause recessions.
Hey now, it's impossible for them to coordinate on employment to prevent recessions!
Because every time they coordinate they form a cartel that causes a recession.
is there anyone on the planet that didn't see this coming the moment the buyout was first announced?
Seemed obvious to me. There’s not that many different ways to quickly remove a toxic work environment. This one comes with large exec bonuses (lots of extra $ now, plus replacements start at base pay, win win!), so it gets the votes.
Everyone is kind of following the same trend now. It doesn't matter if it is the right or wrong decision. Companies aren't as creative as they used to be, so now they are just cannibalizing themselves in order to protect their wealth
Though it looks like the video game industry is about to go upside down. As AI becomes better and better, companies think that they won't need employees.
In fact it is the reverse.
Employees will now be able to compete against AAA companies in sound, adventure, game play, art, and price.
As a gaming company that created palworld only had 4 people on their team and could make millions at selling a game for $30
Unlike AAA companies that now have to have $70 price tags, battle passes, expansions, cosmetic stores. And at the end of the day can't even put out a decent working product.
Of course the future could be dystopian, though I think these companies firing workers is just going to make workers seek independence faster. And find it in AI.
I mean, they're literally called Activision, not Creativevision.
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
While Microsoft is primarily laying off roles at Activision Blizzard, some Xbox and ZeniMax employees will also be impacted by the cuts.
His influence will be felt for years to come, both directly and indirectly as Allen plans to continue mentoring young designers across the industry,” says Booty.
Booty says Microsoft will be “shifting some of the people working on it to one of several promising new projects Blizzard has in the early stages of development.”
Microsoft completed its $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard in October, following 20 months of battles with regulators in the UK and US.
Former Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick stepped down at the end of December, with Microsoft not appointing a direct replacement.
The software maker is due to report its fiscal Q2 2024 earnings next week, which, for the first time, will include results from the impact of the Activision Blizzard acquisition.
Saved 62% of original text.