klahtnun
Aptiv spends $1 billion per year on salaries.
So the very "worst CEO" (by this metric) receives 1.40% of all salary paid by the company. Google's CEO receives is 1%.
I think this explains why CEOs make so much relative to an individual. Paying them 1% of all salaries feels, and is, very cheap given how important their role is.
If Steve Jobs had been paid 50% of all salary it would have been worth it to shareholders. Of course lots of bad CEOs get paid huge amounts as well but why is this bad? The salary they received is not what hurts the company, it only cost around 1%. What really hurts is the damage a bad CEO does to the company. That can cost the entire resources of the company.
The ancient Romans didn't allow prosecution of some public officials while in office for a similar reason. Their courts could too easily be abused as a political tool.
It's not unreasonable to leave public officials unmoderated while they're in office.
The real problem here is that we're letting private companies make the decision. We should pass a law that requires unrestricted free speech on any platform of a certain size. And then give users optional moderation tools. Users could toggle a button that says "Show me fact-checking along side controversial topics" but it would all have to be opt-in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS5C38kayWI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5sKN2vOtZM
https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/gvc5pt
https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/gvimlx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RokxrLLBjKA
And many more examples are available...