top | item 43881836

(no title)

sushid | 10 months ago

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.

discuss

order

Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe|10 months ago

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"

Sophira|10 months ago

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.

astrange|10 months ago

> 1. It makes it clear how few powerful people are owning everything.

You own Microsoft. It's a public company.

KeepFlying|10 months ago

The number of levels isnt the issue, it's the size and scope of control of the market.

The rest is on journalists to be sure to mention "Microsoft owned Bethesda" more often.

jemmyw|10 months ago

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.

olddustytrail|10 months ago

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.

astrange|10 months ago

Why do you want to ban social wealth funds?

(Also, any form of equity investing that isn't a tax nightmare. You'd have to love doing K1s.)