2 ms·
Private companies have less transparency than public companies. You're hoping the owner will be benevolent and okay with losing money indefinitely for the sake
by sangnoir 5y ago
Private companies have less transparency than public companies. You're hoping the owner will be benevolent and okay with losing money indefinitely for the sake of transparency, or if that turns out to be the case - that ownership will not change (e.g. bought out by Murdoch or Carlos Slim)
- politician 5y agoYou misunderstand, it’s true that a private company can be opaque, but a public company cannot be altruistic due to the composition of the shareholders. No one was able to prevent the Saudis from buying a major stake in Twitter, and the Kingdom is historically opposed to free speech. A publicly traded company cannot solve this problem but a private company might be able to.
- sangnoir 5y agoI understand you just fine - I was just pointing out that a private company can also choose to be opaque in a way public companies can't. It probably would have been easier for the KSA to buy a stake had Twitter been private. Incidentally, the infamous "Funding secured" tweet was predicated on funding from the Saudis[1]; so Elon taking money from the Saudi's isn't unfathomable, should he hypothetically choose to sell to them. 1. According to Elon, who now insists the tweet was true.