What would you allow? Just one level deep? Two? All you'd be doing is incentivizing the creation of more proxies and more legal fees/inefficiencies to go along with it.
I think one solution would be to always have the parent company iname n the children company. This way you don't have github by "Github by microsoft". But any links in between should appear if a separate legal entity.
1. It makes it clear how few powerful people are owning everything.
2. It makes it obvious there's something wrong when you see that the 30 different bottles you can buy in front of you are all from coca colla
3. It makes it very obvious that there's something fishy about "chocolate chips by a france by b luxembourg by c switzerland by d ireland by big conglomerate by mondelez international"
I think using the term "by" like that at all is going to lead to serious confusion.
As we all know, GitHub is not "by" Microsoft (as in, written by them). It's under their control now, and sure, they've made a lot of changes, but the actual code was written before Microsoft purchased them.
I am for this proposal. The huge charts that show companies like RJR/PM, Unilever, J&J, nestle are obnoxious and give the illusion of choice.
I recently (last year) found out that nestle does not have an interest in Purina livestock feed, only the pet feed. It made shopping for feed a lot easier, but I'm still wary. At least Smucker makes pet and animal feed.
I am a firm believer in boycotts, usually indefinite. Nestle, Samsung, and General Electric and all their subsidiaries are my current ones. No one can hold me accountable for any malfeasance by any of those companies as I refuse to give them any money.
It's not because anyone can buy a fraction of microsoft, that I have actual control over it. Come on, there are moguls who have millions of times more control over them.
Not sure. I certainly think there should have been anti trust interest in Microsoft buying GitHub. If only we had good agencies with subject matter experts who can't be bought off by the companies.
I would only allow one level: all companies must be owned by a person or persons named.
I would also have it that any contract controlling that person's interest is nullified so if you're trying to use a proxy to get around the law you'd have to be very sure you trust them because they are the legal owner.
Ah yeah, all the many social wealth funds that are owned by people without names. Such a loss!
I've no idea what a K1 is. Presumably something from your country. If the tax system in your country is so broken it can't cope with humans, you should probably fix it.
1. It makes it clear how few powerful people are owning everything.
2. It makes it obvious there's something wrong when you see that the 30 different bottles you can buy in front of you are all from coca colla
3. It makes it very obvious that there's something fishy about "chocolate chips by a france by b luxembourg by c switzerland by d ireland by big conglomerate by mondelez international"