<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>rosser</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;...which is legally required to put shareholders profits as a higher priority than everything else.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please retire this egregiously broken misconstrual of fiduciary duty. I promise you, this is &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; the law, and you sound a fool for repeating it.</text><parent_chain><item><author>Apreche</author><text>It never did. Otherwise it would have incorporated as a non-profit or a PBC. Since its inception, Google has always been a for-profit entity, which is legally required to put shareholders profits as a higher priority than everything else.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Google employees: We no longer believe the company places values over profits</title><url>https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/27/read-google-employees-open-letter-protesting-project-dragonfly.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>cosmie</author><text>Shareholder value[1], not shareholder profit. There&amp;#x27;s a subtle but important difference. It&amp;#x27;s pretty easy to engineer short term profits, but usually results in cannibalizing long-term value.&lt;p&gt;The amassed engineering talent and accumulated knowledge-base at Google is a strategically important asset to Google, and defection of that knowledge-base en-masse would be a very bad thing. Both by handicapping Google&amp;#x27;s ability itself while simultaneously seeding the marketplace with a large concentration of individuals that know the inner workings of Google technology. While this already happens through normal attrition, happening en-masse would be far more of a market risk.&lt;p&gt;In this instance, Google employees being as vocal as they are is more influential than you make it sound. Even viewing it through the lens of shareholder value. Which is also not actually a legal requirement, which [1] provides details about towards the end.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.investopedia.com&amp;#x2F;terms&amp;#x2F;s&amp;#x2F;shareholder-value.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.investopedia.com&amp;#x2F;terms&amp;#x2F;s&amp;#x2F;shareholder-value.asp&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>Apreche</author><text>It never did. Otherwise it would have incorporated as a non-profit or a PBC. Since its inception, Google has always been a for-profit entity, which is legally required to put shareholders profits as a higher priority than everything else.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Google employees: We no longer believe the company places values over profits</title><url>https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/27/read-google-employees-open-letter-protesting-project-dragonfly.html</url></story>