This is a strong reason that corporations should not be considered people. People are long-lived entities with accountability and you can't just create or destroy them at will.
I think a good example of the dichotomy here is Starlink. On one hand, it's an incredibly useful service that often has a positive impact. On the other hand, a private corporation is just polluting our low earth orbit with thousands of satellites.
It's not clear to me where exactly the right balance for something like this should be, but I do think that as of today, we're too far on the lessez-faire side.
Seems like a terrible example to me. I'm no fan of Musk, but I don't see how that is "polluting".
They provide an excellent service. They're a minor hindrance for astronomy, true, but I think it would be hard to make a good case for that a few people having a good view of the sky is more important than millions having good communications.
Then there's that there's nothing really special about Starlink. It's merely one of the first users of cheap rocket launches. It could be somebody else, or 1000 different entities launching smaller numbers, in the end the effect on astronomy would be the same.
I didn't say there was, and this isn't about Musk. I'm just using Starlink as an example, my point is not about Starlink.
"I don't see how that is polluting"
Starlink satellites create light pollution and disrupt radio frequencies. Astronomers are already running into issues with research due to the light from Starlink satellites. There's also the issue of reentry. We now have a Starlink reentry almost every single day, which is at least damaging to the ozone layer, and very likely causing other issues.
But like I said, this is not about Starlink. It's just an example to illustrate accountability sinks having both positive and negative effects.
There's no accountability sink to speak of here. "Accountability sink" in the article's meaning means that accountability got obscured, something bad happened (eg, lies on TV, terrible customer service), yet nobody can be clearly blamed for giving the order.
Here, it's Musk's invention, and he's clearly to blame for it. In fact Musk has a propensity to take more credit than he deserves, so it's almost the opposite from a sink really.
This article is more about the phenomenon where decisions are removed by multiple degrees. The locus of decision making is either obscured or non-existent, creating plausible deniability. This is often done by rewarding activities that don't obviously create harm but nevertheless require causing harm to carry out.
It's analogous to the Fox example in the article, where somebody at the top says, "we want high viewership." They don't want their employees to lie to their audience, and they don't force them to lie to their audience.
Does the Fox leadership at some point become aware that "lying to the audience" is a result of their performance goals, just like the decision makers at Starlink become aware that light pollution is a result of their goals? They very likely do. Does that make them feel accountable for the negative side effects? Probably not, because they didn't tell anyone to lie and pollute the skies, somebody else did that.