|
|
|
|
|
|
by boh
1932 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.