I'm saying the "well known context" is a bunch of news articles of questionable accuracy. It would be nice to at least have a court trial before killing a company so actual evidence can be offered.
And also you should establish the reasons to kill a company.
Should a company die if some of its engineers sexually harasses other employees? What if it's HR department mishandles complaints by the victims?
Should a company die if it attempts to track and eliminate fraud being committed by purposely breaking Apple App store rules?
Should a company die if it attempts to outwit regulators trying to entrap it by giving them fake information?
If you think a company should be killed, you damn well should be able to clearly elucidate the reasons for it.
It would be nice to at least have a court trial before killing a company
Yes, that is the mechanism we use for determining whether allegations of untoward behavior are true or false. Did I argue for denying or short-circuiting that process anywhere? No.
Your argument is circular, equivalent to complaining that someone can't be indicted or sued because their guilt or liability has yet to be proven at trial.
I think you understand this very well and that your skepticism is performative, meant to impress others rather than convince me. Good luck with that strategy.
And also you should establish the reasons to kill a company.
Should a company die if some of its engineers sexually harasses other employees? What if it's HR department mishandles complaints by the victims?
Should a company die if it attempts to track and eliminate fraud being committed by purposely breaking Apple App store rules?
Should a company die if it attempts to outwit regulators trying to entrap it by giving them fake information?
If you think a company should be killed, you damn well should be able to clearly elucidate the reasons for it.