[scottyah]

As long as they're non-voting shares, I don't see the harm.

I assume not enough politicians in this senator's camp were given their early cut so this is retribution/a lesson to the abstract "Big Tech" to show that DC is still the city that rules the world.

[thewebguyd]

Why non-voting shares? That kind of defeats the point of partial ownership.

If the models were built using the output of all of human effort over time, then society at large should absolutely have a voice in the direction of the companies.

This tech should be made for public benefit, not for purely profit and private interests.

Quite frankly, most companies should be worker co-ops instead, and its long passed time we start moving to that model.

[scottyah]

Anyone can start a worker co-op, and anyone can decide to shop at them. We're well past the point where anyone can argue what should be the right way to manage a company because you can just do it. I think even the franchise model is like a large scale co-op.

The models just take the same information available to anyone and make it more useful, it's not like oil or mining where it's a consumable that people share, nor is it taking from the youth- in fact it's one of the best ways of utilizing the knowledge of the past.

Honestly, the a lot of the people I hear complaining about having a "voice" about "output of all of human effort over time" are usually not the ones who put the information out on the web/books, as they are usually doing it for the benefit of future humans and not for profit. Seems to be the same as PMs or VCs trying to "capture the value" of other people.

[triceratops]

> Why non-voting shares? That kind of defeats the point of partial ownership.

Not really, no. Ownership gets you a share of the profits and profits can be used to reduce income taxes. I think non-voting is wise. It prevents political and partisan meddling.