[altruios]

> There is an argument to be made here though when said owner is another corporate entity - that is not a person so maybe it doesn't deserve any privacy.

Agree on that point.

One argument I muster for the general case: say you disagree politically with a billionaire and don't wish to give them any money, if you don't know what companies they own: how can you act effectively in market actions with limited information? such an arrangement systemically gives power to the owner class compared to the consumer class on every exchange made between the two. We should strive for something fairer, something more open. And we should not be terrorized by the limited few deranged bad faith/violent actors.

[nickpp]

There were two great evil ideologies that ravaged the last century. One promoted hate agains people based on race, another based on wealth. One was called fascism and the other marxism. They both killed millions and they both are rearing their ugly heads back lately.

As an individual you are entitled to hate whomever you want. After all, we all have the racist uncle or the commie nephew. But the law should shield the public from people like you, not help you hunt your victims. Anti-segregation, anti-discrimination and privacy laws are good for that.

[altruios]

You seem to be talking over me and not at me. And seem to have inserted an assumption of what comes next in this conversation.

I don't want to give my money to a billionaire fascist, or capitalist, evangelical, or -ism (What I want is proper market information to act rationally as a market actor). I don't want to hunt anyone. I worry about what internet content you consume to make you think that's what I think. I would examine that.

You are about ready to fight a battle with a scarecrow you constructed yourself.