The founders who become CEOs are generally the better ones. The ones that draw universal hatred are usually hired by the board of public companies, to enact unpopular measures to ensure shareholder returns, such as firing expensive developers to make room for cheap AI; or unfairly denying health care to policy holders (like Luigi's alleged victim); etc. The relatively rare heartless corporate CEO also receives disproportionate public attention compared to the more common founder->CEO.
But there is literature concensus that at least in the US, non-US born CEOs are the best, and there is little relation between founders -> CEOs and good company performance on multiple metrics.
They can be the best at bringing in shareholder value, which would have a great correlation with enshittification. Having the ability to reduce the quality of something so that customers barely stay (or have no where else to go because they have been trapped in a monopoly or a walled garden) is not a skill. I'd argue it is a trait out of cartoon villains.
> The ones that draw universal hatred are usually hired by the board of public companies
Nah. When I talk about CEOs I usually mean founders-turned-CEO because those are the types I've personally known and shared space with. Remember, this is HN.
Most of those guys are megalomaniacs, clueless, or clueless megalomaniacs.
The U.S. justice system is notorious for pushing people to plead guilty when they really aren't, or for cases involving extenuating circumstances.
The apparent facts bear out that Luigi is guilty of killing that executive, but since it was an executive in a position of making decisions that damaged or ended the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of people, they would give him a pass (and directions to other executives/billionaires).
I didn't say anything about alleged. I said the "apparent facts". I chose the phrase "apparent facts" because prosecutors and police outright lie or, at best, misstate the facts about what happened, such as when ICE agents claimed that the people they shot were driving their cars at them.
No, he didn’t. Not by any logic that doesn’t also implicate every other executive, employee, vendor, and customer of every health insurance company, plus a huge number of other industries. To the point where the blame is so diffuse that it’s a pointless exercise.
Edit since I can’t reply: if “murderer” means someone who takes actions that have nth-order effects of someone dying, with no reasonable or discernible limit on n, then we’re all murderers and the term means nothing.
Luigi should just done something that caused each of their executives to lose 10 years off their lifespan without actually killing them. Then he would have gotten rid of an entire lifetime but because it’s spread out, you couldn’t call him a murderer.
No, that's stupid too. Insurance companies pay for things that extend life. They don't shorten life. That would be things like tobacco companies. And even then, it's actually the customers of tobacco companies that do it.
So let's hold him accountable for the illegal things he did!
Oh wait, he didn't break any laws? Hmm...well, fuck the idea of having a legal system I guess, let's just cheer every vigilante who decides to murder people in the street based on their own feelings. I'm sure that'll work out well.
This is the same talk that saw people turn a blind eye to all the horror in history. You invent a fake story that casts someone (Jews in Nazi Germany, the middle class in Soviet Russia, whatever it is) as worthy of death, and then you do everything you can to excuse the behaviour of their murderers.
