I was under the impression the application was more akin to 'fiduciary duty provides an executive shield for morally reprehensible corporate choices' rather than 'it provides an ability to sue someone for not following it.'
Legal defense instead of offense. IANAL, correct me please.
I don’t think “morally reprehensible” is a legal standard (but i’m not a lawyer either).
But to the point of this thread, there is no legal requirement that makes it so a boards fiduciary duty is in conflict with broader moral decisions, nor one that requires them to forget about their humanity when applying their duties as corporate officers.
If they are assholes, its because they are assholes, not because they are required to do so by their obligations to the corporation.
I mean in the sense that if there's a morally distasteful business choice, but corporate officers pursue it, then are sued, a solid defense is claiming fiduciary duty. To wit, they thought it would make the company money.
> but traditional media has all been captured and the algorithms have done the rest
We should be explicit about what happened:
Google and Facebook skimmed off most of advertising revenue that previously supported journalism.
Then neither originated new news in quantity or quality to replace what they ate. Revenues (from ads) without costs (of paying journalists) = their profits.
Now, we have orders of magnitude less professional journalism.
When you boil it down, their business models are less about being clever and more about redirecting a huge, previously-social-good flow of money through their toll gates and taxing it.
Sorry, have to call b.s. on lack of funds. Our media are owned by a very few, a handful, of corporations. And this happened before Google even existed. It happened in the 90s.
> business model
I don't know, is this willful ignorance? Press is political ...
That Sinclair, Nexstar, CC/iHeartMedia were allowed to consolidate in the 90s is bad.
That Google et al. decimated newspaper revenue from the mid-00s onwards without replacing their newsrooms is worse.*
I wouldn't have as big a gripe if Google or Facebook had started their own news bureaus and funded them with their profits. It still would have been a rounding error on their balance sheet.
But instead they destroyed a social good, took their bonuses, and called it a day.
The loop seems to go like this: remote working + increasingly isolated-by-default urban cultures => social depression => not having the energy to go out => more social depression
Spending too much time on the internet exacerbates this. It seems like a cure, but is really just empty social calories. And too much news is even worse.
Being in a relationship or having kids provides built-in, daily social stimulation. I can almost guarantee that's what you're missing, even if it doesn't feel like that and/or that doesn't sound appealing.
Your skills around doing that with strangers might have also atrophied (some strangers suck, so why deal with that when you have great people at home?).
But... it is a skill that can be rebuilt!
I'd recommend making a plan for social engagement, that feels right, and sticking to it. And there are tiny steps: taking a book to a local library and reading around other people (instead of alone), starting one conversation with a stranger (no matter how short or simple), walking through a park (with dog!), etc. Anywhere there are other people.
As someone who went through something similar to OP recently, the things that saved me: (1) getting a dog, (2) giving up a remote-only job for a hybrid one, and (3) diving back into dating.*
* Bumble. Yes, it sucked. Imho, best way to approach it: only match with people you'd be interested enough to go on a date with, chat just enough to figure out if you vibe (and learn red flags to watch for), then plan an in-person date, and be honest with them about feelings after the first date.
You only view your TV from inside the Faraday cage, of course.
reply