I think everyone wants a high trust society but you can't just remove all guardrails and expect that to be the result. The causality goes the other way.

▲

newspaper1 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I would absolutely support the surveillance of CEOs and board members. They have demonstrated themselves, as a class, to not be trustworthy. I think as a society, we should be reviewing Alex Karp's decision making for instance.

▲

groundzeros2015 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is not a serious comment. CEOs are some of the most accountable and watched people in society. Low level employees (imagine a random adult) is not highly capable or accountable and needs guidance.

Can you acknowledge this gap in your analysis?

▲

newspaper1 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

CEOs are not accountable at all. Look at Elon Musk. I don't care what the guy stocking shelves at Walmart does, I do care when billionaires interfere with my life in myriad ways, all of which are nefarious. They can cause infinitely more damage than a low level employee and need infinite more scrutiny because of that.

	▲	groundzeros2015 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What has Elon done to you? Other than provide more vehicle and internet choices? Scrutiny and surveillance are not synonyms.

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

b112 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There are hundreds of millions of CEOs, and board members. Every single company in the West has a CEO and a board.

I've heard of some bad behaviour. I haven't heard of millions of cases of bad behaviour. Do you have numbers to back up your assertions?

▲

graemep 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Every single company in the West has a CEO and a board.

Outside the West too!

▲

antonvs 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Collectively, in the US at least, decisions collectively made by boards have led to greatly increased inequality.

For example, at every AI company right now, an explicit goal it to make profit by replacing or reducing the need for human staff. There tends to be extremely little attention paid to the social ramifications of this: like every SV business before them, the goal is to "disrupt" and leave the consequences for everyone else to deal with.

So yes, collectively, what has led to the current situation is indeed "millions of cases of bad behavior", each one of them often relatively localized, but collectively leading to damaging results.

The proposed oversight of board members and CEOs could be a great way to bring these issues into public discussion, to provide much-needed pushback that we don't get if boards have no oversight other than that provided by investment markets.

▲

lotsofpulp 8 hours ago | parent [-]

>For example, at every AI company right now, an explicit goal it to make profit by replacing or reducing the need for human staff.

Almost everyone has an explicit goal of spending less money for equivalent goods and services. People prefer to stores that prioritize lowering prices over paying for more staff.

▲

antonvs 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Do people also prefer paying zero percent tax over paying a positive percentage in tax?

Perhaps you’d like to reconsider your comment with that in mind.

	▲	lotsofpulp 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I do not see why I should reconsider. My intention was to point out it is not just “AI companies” that have the following directive, they just couch it in finding the lowest price for something. >an explicit goal it to make profit by replacing or reducing the need for human staff. There tends to be extremely little attention paid to the social ramifications of this:

▲

newspaper1 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There are orders of magnitude more workers than there are CEOs and board members. If surveiling workers is on the table, certainly the much easier and higher return task of monitoring this much smaller group, who has the potential to do much more damage to society, is a better idea.