4 ms·

Publishing who owns X is the same as publishing everything a person owns. Viewed from one side there is convincing reasons for the public to know, viewed from t

Publishing who owns X is the same as publishing everything a person owns. Viewed from one side there is convincing reasons for the public to know, viewed from the other side it is a matter of privacy. Do I want to know? Do I want others to know about myself?

cheriot 4y ago
Treating large companies differently than private citizens seems pretty reasonable to me. At some point, money is no longer about consumption, it's a form of power. We should be able to identify those with power.
- jimnotgym 4y ago
  It is also only true of corporations. Nobody has to start a corporation in order to run a business. You can be a sole trader and keep everything to yourself. If you want the protection of a corporation you have to pay for it with a level of transparency. Seems fair to me
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> who owns X is the same as publishing everything a person owns No, one is an asset the other a liability. Most peoples’ liabilities are recorded on a credit report.
michaelmrose 4y ago
Why on earth would the 99.9% stop for even the space of breath to consider the privacy of the 0.1% of the planet who owns and is largely ruining everything probably for centuries to come. Civilized life is no less adversarial than the savanna except nobody expects the wildebeest to pause a moment to consider the needs of the lions trying to eat her baby. Why should she? Why should we? If you don't like what your fellow think of you for owning foo corp because they don't approve of soylent green or cigarettes then sell. If you are secure in your convictions and your financial choices hold. Privacy here holds little virtue especially when is so clearly doomed to only hold for the rich. If we are going to largely live in a transparent society as seems so very likely I see no virtue in privacy for the rich.
alliao 4y ago
if I was a billionaire I'd want how much I paid in taxes private matters too..
croes 4y ago
No, it's not. Publishing all owners of X is not the same as publishing all what the owners own. And fo

cheriot 4y ago

Treating large companies differently than private citizens seems pretty reasonable to me. At some point, money is no longer about consumption, it's a form of power. We should be able to identify those with power.

jimnotgym 4y ago
It is also only true of corporations. Nobody has to start a corporation in order to run a business. You can be a sole trader and keep everything to yourself. If you want the protection of a corporation you have to pay for it with a level of transparency. Seems fair to me

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> who owns X is the same as publishing everything a person owns No, one is an asset the other a liability. Most peoples’ liabilities are recorded on a credit report.

michaelmrose 4y ago

Why on earth would the 99.9% stop for even the space of breath to consider the privacy of the 0.1% of the planet who owns and is largely ruining everything probably for centuries to come. Civilized life is no less adversarial than the savanna except nobody expects the wildebeest to pause a moment to consider the needs of the lions trying to eat her baby. Why should she? Why should we? If you don't like what your fellow think of you for owning foo corp because they don't approve of soylent green or cigarettes then sell. If you are secure in your convictions and your financial choices hold. Privacy here holds little virtue especially when is so clearly doomed to only hold for the rich. If we are going to largely live in a transparent society as seems so very likely I see no virtue in privacy for the rich.

alliao 4y ago

if I was a billionaire I'd want how much I paid in taxes private matters too..

croes 4y ago

No, it's not. Publishing all owners of X is not the same as publishing all what the owners own. And fo