[YetAnotherNick]

> Shareholders have an incentive to violate privacy much stronger than any one employee

Exactly what I said. We need lower shareholder interference not more, and in co-operative it's the opposite.

> with immediate liability for their person.

What do you mean?

[komali2]

The only shareholders in a co-op are the owners/operators ("employees"), or the owners/operators + customers (for example REI I believe). There's nobody seeking to extract value at the expense of the employees or the customers.

If, as a shareholder operator, a co-op member pressured themselves to exploit user data to turn a quick buck, I guess that's possible, but likely they'd be vetoed by other members who would get sucked into the shitstorm.

In my experience, co-op members and customers are more value-oriented than profit-motivated, within reason.

[YetAnotherNick]

> but likely they'd be vetoed by other members who would get sucked into the shitstorm.

Why are shareholders less likely to veto a evil person in a company vs in a co-operative? I think in most cases, the evil person is likely to get vetoed but sometimes greed takes over, specially over period of years and decades.

[komali2]

Evil in a co-op means something different than evil in a corporation.

The corporation at the end of the day will lean back on profit motive as the core underlying value. This value , to a co-op, isn't inherently evil, but is often evil.

The co-op will happily sacrifice the co-op for the good of the members if push comes to shove. Whereas corporate shareholders constantly vote for things that result in e.g. layoffs, downsizing, restriction of benefits, salary freezes.

[jacquesm]

A cooperative does not have shareholders in your sense of the word.

[YetAnotherNick]

Yes it does. In the purest sense, shareholder means "profit share" holders.

[jacquesm]

No, it does not mean that. In the purest sense it means 'fractional ownership', which can or may lead to profits.