[bostonsre]

Why is there no case to be made? It would be interesting for someone to investigate if it hasn't been already. I'm curious if that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" saying is just a saying or if it has a basis in reality. I can't recall many benevolent dictators for life from my history classes.

[boh]

This comment is in reference to the voting rights attached to common shares. This would have likely not been covered in your history classes.

[bostonsre]

> There's no case to be made that "super control" inherently leads to unethical behavior.

You are saying it like it's been proven. What are companies where is gone well? I can't think of many examples whether inside or outside of the market where absolute control has gone well.

[boh]

Voting rights don't give you "absolute control".

[bostonsre]

Seems like you are splitting hairs and arguing about semantics. If you don't want to call it absolute control then it's whatever is currently in place at Facebook where Zuckerberg has majority voting rights and has stacked the board with yes men. He controls policy, he controls the direction of the company. If that's not controlling something absolutely, then what is it?

[boh]

Semantics denote meaning, so splitting hairs on the meaning of a statement is an adequate subject for argument. You're making broad assumptions about the nature of voting rights in general by referencing an individual narrative regarding one company. You're also oversimplifying the narrative. The aggregate activities of a company cannot be denoted through some parable about an evil man with "absolute power". Rest assured, whatever has happened with Facebook was a team effort involving many different stakeholders.

[bostonsre]

> The aggregate activities of a company cannot be denoted through some parable about an evil man with "absolute power".

Where was evil mentioned at all? Why is comparing countries with dictatorships to companies where majority ownership is held by one person not allowed? Are you really saying there are no commonalities between the two at all and any similarities are to be outright ignored because they're not the same? Of course they are not the same, but they are both massive bureaucratic organizations where a few individuals have an iron grip on control.

> Rest assured, whatever has happened with Facebook was a team effort involving many different stakeholders.

I'm not sure the past of facebook matters, what is its state right now? To me, it looks like zuckerberg has stacked the board with yes men and there is not a single thing that anyone can do from within the organization to go against him. Call it whatever you want, but he seems to be controlling it pretty absolutely at the moment. He _literally_ idolizes and models himself after Agustus Caesar. He sees the use in studying historical tyrannical governments, so it seems possible to me that there could be something useful in the comparison and that it shouldn't be dismissed outright because it's not exactly the same.