Probably there should be an independent body that oversees postmortems on tech issues, with the ability to suggest changes. This is what airlines face during crash investigations and often new rules are put in place (e.g., don’t let the shift manager self-certify his own work in the incident where the pilot’s window popped off). How this would look like with software companies, and what the bar is for being subject to this rigor I don’t know (I suspect not for a Candy Crush outage though).

In general, the biggest problem I see with late stage capitalism, and a lack of accountability in general, is that given the right incentives people will “fuck things up” faster than you can stop them. For example, say CrowdStrike was skirting QA - what’s my incentive as an individual employee versus the incentive of an executive at the company? If the exec can’t tell the difference between good QA and bad QA, but can visually see the accounting numbers go up when QA is underfunded, he’s going to optimize for stock price. And as an IC there’s not much you can do unless you’re willing to fight the good fight day in and day out. But when management repeatedly communicates they do not reward that behavior, and indeed may not care at all about software quality over a 5 year time horizon, what do you do? The key lies in finding ways to convince executives or short of that holding them to account like you say.