Reads like a "too big to fail" argument.
It works for the banking industry I guess so why not here too.
It works for the banking industry I guess so why not here too.
Too big to fail implies catastrophic harm worse than the (unpalatable) steps necessary to prop something up.
This argument is really exploring the line between “company did something harmful” and “company did something so harmful they should no longer exist”.
I’m not arguing for either, but TBTF is unrelated.
> Given that scenario, does the ethical math really work for ACME to be completely destroyed?
I agree that the broader conversation is not just about ceasing to exist, but this was the context of my comment.