Re:Reddit to go dark on Jan 18 to protest SOPA
by biot on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @08:06PM
(#3449975)
Fiduciary duty to shareholders. A blackout preventing searches (rather than an informative message that users can easily dismiss) would impact revenue and might result in a shareholder lawsuit. Not to mention the impact to AdSense [edit: I meant to say AdWords] advertisers who might see that as an SLA violation.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Reddit to go dark on Jan 18 to protest SOPA
by jlarocco on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @08:55PM
(#3450121)
Does AdSense have an SLA? In any case, I'd be shocked if the contracts weren't in terms of number of searches. If 0 searches are done, there will be 0 AdSense "hits".
The "fiduciary duty" to shareholders seems pretty far fetched and could be argued the other way as well. Enforcing SOPA will be a heavy financial burden and negatively impact future performance, therefore not using every means necessary to block SOPA is also a breach of "fiduciary duty".
Re:Reddit to go dark on Jan 18 to protest SOPA
by biot on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @09:23PM
(#3450187)
I completely agree that it could go both ways. However, anybody can sue for anything these days. While opposing SOPA is the responsible choice, I can see a potential shareholder suit claiming that opposing SOPA could be done without taking drastic measures (ie: a blackout rather than a dismissible message) that immediately impact revenue.
Re:Reddit to go dark on Jan 18 to protest SOPA
by buddy_nuggs on Wednesday January 11, 2012 @01:27AM
(#3450687)
Reddit also has shareholders, even though it is a private company. Fiduciary duty obligations apply to Reddit management as well. IMO, management at these companies would have a very strong argument that opposing SOPA in dramatic fashion would be more likely to increase shareholder value in the long run.