Comment on Why Do Sites Keep Shoving Features We Don’t Want Down Our Throats?

PP_BOY_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

• spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Fiduciary responsibility, companies have a legal obligation to not only protect but grow their investor’s money.

  No they do not. The investors can toss out the leadership if they aren’t performing as desired.

  source
• resipsaloquitur@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  That’s not what fiduciary duty means, and “companies” don’t have fiduciary duties unless they are banks or investment firms.

  source
• yarr@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  If Google found that they could make more money selling socks door-to-door than they do with YouTube, they’d have a legal requirement to do so.

  This is not correct. There is a such a thing as being “on mission”. Otherwise every single company would be forced by law to turn into an investment bank which has the highest profit margins. There is no world in which a software company is forced to start selling socks to uphold a legal obligation to the shareholders.

  source
• shalafi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  You have the correct term, but that’s not exactly how it works. At my last job the CEO told the board that he intended to lose money building our staff, skills and core software products. They applauded him. (Oops, we made a profit on those years anyway, but the point stands.)

  Fiduciary responsibility mainly means they have to make a good faith effort to protect and grow company finances. They have no obligation to drive the line up quarterly.

  source