4 ms·
It's not privately owned so it's not really a private company even if it has to abide by the same laws. I don't get why you accuse me of rhetorical framing, it'
by cinntaile 9mo ago
It's not privately owned so it's not really a private company even if it has to abide by the same laws. I don't get why you accuse me of rhetorical framing, it's what the ownership situation looks like.
- shaky-carrousel 9mo agoFair enough; we're using different definitions of "private." I'm using it in the legal/operational sense relevant to whether a government service was withdrawn (agency vs company, public law vs company law). By that definition, it's a private company. You're using it in a shareholder-ownership sense. That's a valid perspective, but it's a different question than the one being discussed here.