14 ms·

Because less people are now in control of the decisions. In theory, a public company is controlled by its shareholders who are the ones that choose the board. N

Because less people are now in control of the decisions. In theory, a public company is controlled by its shareholders who are the ones that choose the board. Now the company is privately owned, meaning there are less owners than before. Less democracy means less people are in control of the decisions, that is precisely what has happened.

onethought 4y ago
But that's not really true - few shareholders or shareholder groups had enough % to choose the board.
- jerojero 4y ago
  Yes. But now it's one man, no? I don't think the situation before was in any way ideal; I simply think it is worse now.
  - onethought 4y ago
    Before these 3 elites could choose, now this 1 elite can choose... I'm not sure it's worse, it's definitely not improved, but we are still letting a class of elites have control over our political discourse. If Elon sticks to the ideals he has espoused and open sourced more of the algorithms and policies of Twitter, that is possibly an improvement.
runarberg 4y ago
I think this is attributing democracy to capitalism which isn’t warranted. At best the structure moves from aristocracy to a dictatorship, neither of which are democratic. As an example from governments: The Chinese legislator is ruled by the communist party. The National People’s Congress has almost 3000 representatives. Even though there are almost 10x more representatives then in the USA legislator (which is still more then double per capita), this doesn’t mean the China’s legislator is more democratic then the USA’s legislator. Far from it. Now if Xi Jinping would dismantle the Congress and assume dictatorial powers (like Caesar crossing the Rubicon) this would just move China from being a totalitarian republic to a dictatorship (again like Ancient Rome after the civil wars), at no point in this affair does the common population in China have any say in the laws that govern them (not even by proxy, as is the case in the USA; but by proxy of a proxy of a proxy etc. effectively thinning out any democratic say to nothing).

onethought 4y ago

But that's not really true - few shareholders or shareholder groups had enough % to choose the board.

jerojero 4y ago
Yes. But now it's one man, no? I don't think the situation before was in any way ideal; I simply think it is worse now.
- onethought 4y ago
  Before these 3 elites could choose, now this 1 elite can choose... I'm not sure it's worse, it's definitely not improved, but we are still letting a class of elites have control over our political discourse. If Elon sticks to the ideals he has espoused and open sourced more of the algorithms and policies of Twitter, that is possibly an improvement.

runarberg 4y ago

I think this is attributing democracy to capitalism which isn’t warranted. At best the structure moves from aristocracy to a dictatorship, neither of which are democratic. As an example from governments: The Chinese legislator is ruled by the communist party. The National People’s Congress has almost 3000 representatives. Even though there are almost 10x more representatives then in the USA legislator (which is still more then double per capita), this doesn’t mean the China’s legislator is more democratic then the USA’s legislator. Far from it. Now if Xi Jinping would dismantle the Congress and assume dictatorial powers (like Caesar crossing the Rubicon) this would just move China from being a totalitarian republic to a dictatorship (again like Ancient Rome after the civil wars), at no point in this affair does the common population in China have any say in the laws that govern them (not even by proxy, as is the case in the USA; but by proxy of a proxy of a proxy etc. effectively thinning out any democratic say to nothing).