41–50 of 175 posts
Classic tactic, similar to insurance companies who advertise great service but throw every caveat in the book at you when you actually file a claim, such that you can’t get to use, you know, what you actually paid for… There has to be a term for this?
If a private individual did the things set out here they'd be criminally liable. When a company executive orders employees to do these things, they're not facing any criminal complaint at all (any of them). See also Wells Fargo multiple thefts (both fraudulent accounts with fees, and literally entire homes/all possessions). It is pretty evident that many laws are constructed (e.g. CFAA) wherein there's one rule for i…
If a private individual did the things set out here they'd be criminally liable. When a company executive orders employees to do these things, they're not facing any criminal complaint at all (any of them). See also Wells Fargo multiple thefts (both fraudulent accounts with fees, and literally entire homes/all possessions). It is pretty evident that many laws are constructed (e.g. CFAA) wherein there's one rule for i…
If corps are people, maybe they should receive jail sentences as such - and then their executives & beneficial owners can carry them out based on liability. A CEO that takes full control and makes a one-man-shop would therefore be fully liable for any sentence received, and can only avoid this be sharing control.
That's amazing. Matt Levine covered it in his column today as well--haven't had time to read it yet, but it's probably good as usual https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-08/moviep...
> If you sell $20 worth of movie tickets for $10, people will sign up, you will have rapid user growth and you can probably get someone to think that that’s valuable, even though in fact every user that you add costs you $10.
> But — unlike most of the “MoviePass economy” — MoviePass was not actually a venture-funded startup, did not raise piles of money, and was somewhat constrained by economic reality. So at some point the company looked for ways to make this insane business model work, and it found one. It’s pretty simple: What if MoviePass collected your $10 each month and then, when you asked it for movie tickets, it ignored you? Then it could keep collecting your $10 a month without spending money on tickets. Eventually you’d get annoyed by not getting what you paid for, and you’d try to cancel your membership and get your money back, but MoviePass could ignore that too and keep collecting the $10. Giving people unlimited movie tickets for $10 a month is a good way to get rapid customer growth; telling people you’ll give them unlimited movie tickets for $10 a month, but not actually doing it, is a way to pivot to profitability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crime is a social construct. edit: A poor person who steals is charged. A rich person who steals behind the facade of a company is not. We call the poor person a criminal. It's entirely divorced from an actual moral framework, but simply constructed. I was agreeing with the commenter I replied to.
I don't understand why you are getting downvoted. When people say they support "Law and order" they are not talking about all crime—they are not referring to fraud or market manipulation for example (white collar crime). They are referring to enforcing laws on just a certain subset of society.
Or enforcing a certain subset of laws on all society.
And it's not just the "bigbiz-friendly" reds, it's also the blues with their "lets not punish non-violent crime". The fact is laws in the US (and elsewhere) are written, but unevenly enforced, as such what remains is quibbling over priority. I want to see more punishments for white collar crime, but I also want to see less leniency for repeated blue-collar crime too.
If a private individual did the things set out here they'd be criminally liable. When a company executive orders employees to do these things, they're not facing any criminal complaint at all (any of them). See also Wells Fargo multiple thefts (both fraudulent accounts with fees, and literally entire homes/all possessions). It is pretty evident that many laws are constructed (e.g. CFAA) wherein there's one rule for i…
That way most laws could be worded in a way that applies to private individuals and all types of companies the same way, but then the actual punishment would be applied differently.
Specifically, when a company breaks the law, the legal framework would explain the way the responsibility should be shared between the legal entity and the private individuals involved in breaking the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crime is a social construct. edit: A poor person who steals is charged. A rich person who steals behind the facade of a company is not. We call the poor person a criminal. It's entirely divorced from an actual moral framework, but simply constructed. I was agreeing with the commenter I replied to.
Simplistic. A poor person is not usually trusted, so their thefts are often more egregious.
MoviePass’ theft contributes to a weakening of trust amongst everyone in society, which is a much more difficult problem to address than theft of physical goods.
Not that society should be lenient on either.
>“MoviePass and its executives went to great lengths to deny consumers access to the service they paid for while also failing to secure their personal information,” As expected.
MoviePass was as much as much of a tech company as WeWork. Having a website doesn’t make you a tech company.
It is how they can convince others to use a favorably high revenue multiple for selling any portions of the business to other people
There, saved you some time
Unpopular opinion, but MoviePass could have survived a lot longer if they had more funding. I think there could have been a real opportunity with establishing themselves the main funnel to getting consumers to physical theaters. They couldn't hold on long enough to see what could be possible with such a moat.
They could have had a small but cult business contracting with smaller theater chains, but they didn't.
They could have also bought tickets in bulk, and sold them through the app, but they didn't.
They could have reserved tickets at premiers and sold them at a markup, but they didn't.
They could have done a LOT of things to make money, but they didn't.
I say this as a onetime holder of more than 1% of publicly available shares. And I think at the time, one of the largest non-institutional shareholders.
Lost a lot of money on wanting a dumb "title".