The annoying tone is unnecessary. Yes, legally speaking operators can go against the board and get replaced, which they certainly should do if they feel they're being asked to do something unethical. But it's not going to change how the company is run.

For the executive, sure. Not for the impact of the overall incentive structure on the trajectory of the business. Which is what this discussion is about.

The discussion literally said "legal obligation."

That's what I was responding to.

The root comment this thread is in reply to had the implication that people are only acting this way because of an inaccurate idea of how strict the legal obligations are, and the other comments are about how that’s obviously not the only force producing the current outcome

Yeah, obviously that's not "the only force producing this outcome." Nobody claimed it was.

But it's important for founders to understand they are not legally obligated to do any specific thing for their shareholders. It is their responsibility to act morally. Yes, there are other incentives and forces at play. "Legal obligation" is not the cop-out excuse that executives claim it is.

On that level, on the quasi-feudal economy that is taking over the world, it's not clear which of those is more impactful.