Market cap is generally the wrong measure. If you registered asf1254 Inc., and it was always just you, and it traded like Meta stocks trade, then "asf1254 Inc." would have a market cap ~6.2× whatever you're currently earning.

i.e., if you earn $100k/year, you'd be "worth" $620k, and 1% of that would be a fine of $6200.

▲

cryptonym a day ago | parent [-]

You may earn 100k/y and have 10M real estate + 2M in bank. Why would you dumb down market cap to earnings?

Anyway, 6K for harming children at that scale remains ridiculous.

▲

ben_w a day ago | parent [-]

> Why would you dumb down market cap to earnings?

The point is "Market cap is BS".

> Anyway, 6K for harming children at that scale remains ridiculous.

One person managing to harm children at this scale would likely get a penalty much smaller than $16 bn.

Of course even "20-life" is a penalty much smaller than $16 bn, given the average American's lifetime earnings are around the $3m level, i.e. it would take 5000 mean lifetimes to repay the actual fine in the headline.

It's nonsensical to scale down a %-of-wealth fee to one person without also considering that the offence would likely be smaller, and also as an independent consideration how difficult it would be for one person to commit the acts.

▲

cryptonym a day ago | parent [-]

Sure, sure. Put Zuck in jail and let's see if it's much smaller than $16 bn.

	▲	ben_w a day ago \| parent [-]
		Would if I could, but I think you're missing my point somewhat.