Yes, if it puts the CEO or the company at jeopardy of blackmail or litigation.

As with security vetting interviews they don't necessarily care about the morality of the actions, just that they are wware and can prepare for the consequences.

There was a very simple choice the CEO could have made which would have avoided all this, anyway.

▲

tsunamifury a day ago | parent [-]

The level of delusion this displays is shocking even for hacker news normal user base who thinks humans are all robots.

▲

estearum a day ago | parent [-]

If you are the CEO of a publicly traded company you are essentially the property of the board. Not sure what’s hard to understand here. If you behave “non-robotically” in certain ways, you lose your job.

Shocking how many people think a board could do anything OTHER than firing him even for just what’s known today about fucking subordinates, never mind what the export control investigations find.

▲

tsunamifury 10 hours ago | parent [-]

What’s clear is you have no experience with this at all and are saying outright falsehoods confidently.

You are none of those things. All of reality if current CEOs today proves you wrong. Your take is so laughable it’s as if it was written by a child or a teenager.

	▲	estearum 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		“Current CEO” counterexamples being who, the Zucks and Musks of the world who have wildly aberrational corporate structures that protect them from their boards? Those are the exception, not the norm. The stock price plummeted upon announcement of the 2nd affair. Boards have an actual fiduciary duty to give a fuck.