191–200 of 413 posts
So after reading the article, I'm still not sure of the crime, or the motivations (from netflix's perspective at least). Can someone help me?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He worked for Netflix, he was responsible for finding a vendor, and he basically chose a vendor based on who would pay him, personally, to let them be the vendor for Netflix. He didn't choose based on who would be the best vendor for Netflix, even though that's what Netflix was paying him to do. Netflix presumably would not have wanted him to do this if they had known what he was doing.
Oh I see... so this is just bribery. And 'Netflix' the organization didn't know basically.
the HN admin changed the link I posted. this is unethical - You are fundamentally changing what I posted. As a product manager here is a better solution - A.) Add a clear indicator that admin changed the link to redirect B.) Delete my link and post yours. Shawdow changing what users post is wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The journalist got it wrong. The startups weren't victims. They were clearly complicit in the crime. They could have very easily reported the bribery scheme to the Netflix board and gotten him fired, but they took the contract instead. The DOJ claimed that the people at Netflix who used the services assumed they were evaluating the services and not paying for them. There are many better articles about this story from…
> “The startups that paid to play, and possibly many others, believed this was how Netflix did business,” the prosecutors said. You're actually accusing the prosecutor of getting it wrong... which seems a bit arrogant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is less political corruption in the US than people think. Everything is so scrutinized these days, especially compared to the rest of the world. White House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu's travel expenses scandal was a big deal at the time, and this was in 1992 (before social media) and the amount of $ was pretty small. I think insider trading is possible concern though, although that too has gotten considerabl…
I know it's a complicated topic, but lobbying can be considered as corruption. E.g. a group with socioeconomic power is corrupting a law in order to serve their own interests. And US is very well known for its lobbying that people are trying to limit.
Lobbying is only possible when someone can do influence favors to others. Full stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kail ultimately received over $500,000 and stock options from these outside companies All this for 500k? Seems like a lot of trouble for the equivalent of a year as a C-Level.
Half a mill here, half a mill there, soon you're talking serious money...? It is possible that your perceptions of how easy it is to extract millions-scale dollars from the business world is skewed. Google suggests 1.7M is the median lifetime earnings in the US, 2.7 is the average. Getting that in a handful of deals could tempt all sorts of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
add an indicator to indicate the admin changed what I (@ugwigr) posted. Materially changing the content your users post is wrong.
He did just that.
Also the fact that he can fundamentally change what a user posts and then choose whether or not to disclose it in comment section is a flaw.
One item seems to have caused a lot of confusion in the comments so I will take a stab at clarifying: It is perfectly legal for Netflix to ask for options or any other consideration in exchange for the contract. Companies do this sort of thing frequently. They know that merely signing a large contract with a large firm will increase the value of the contractor. It is not legal for someone working for Netflix to ask f…
> It is not legal for someone working for Netflix to ask for shares in their own personal capacity as individuals It can be, I think. If Netflix were properly informed of and signed off on the arrangement, it would just be an elaborate compensation mechanism. It would be a lot of paperwork. And they wouldn't approve that.
Lots of comments here about how sentences are harsher for harming corporations and the extremely rich rather than common people. (See this case, Theranos, etc.) Is it possible that Netflix is _funding_ (or providing substantial material support to) the prosecution of this case, a bit like we've seen in Chevron v Donziger?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So all the Sox compliance in the world did nothing to prevent this fraud?
Laws don't prevent murder, but they are an after-the-fact tool we can use to beat a killer over the head with.