this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
216 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

43274 readers
111 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No I'm just pointing out that your view on who should morally control the company is wrong from the start.

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

How so? Shareholders are the worst cancer on the economy, but at the same time hard to eliminate without a revolution.

The proper order should be that people invest in a company they believe will do well, not because they seek to exert control over it. If you do not believe the company is operating in a profitable manner you should not buy, or sell your, shares.

You state this is wrong. Why? In my opinion, if we must have institutionalized gambling, we should seek to keep it from exerting undue influence, even in the shareholders own long term interest. Of course this would not allow the leadership to just do whatever with the money, reporting and oversight should if anything be improved upon.

[–] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Companies aren't required to go public in the first place so it’s a rather moot point. They actively choose to be in the situation where they are beholden to shareholders.

If you owned a company you could just, like, not go asking rich people for money to grow or whatever (what IPO is, basically) and grow naturally on your own merits. Then you don’t even have to worry about what kind of votes people might have.

Personally I think the stock market should just be banned outright. Go back to pensions or some sort of UBI or even have companies pay into universal pensions or something, whatever, but tying retirement to gambling needs to stop, and the entire gambling on the economy thing is clearly not working well overall what with it being pretty easy to manipulate, to the destruction of all, and all..

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 days ago

Non-voting common stock is a scam pulled by these fucking billionaire founders to reduce public participation, and concentrate their power, even as they use other's money for their pet projects.

If a company just needs to take up money for an investment, it can issue bonds. Then it gives up no control, but enters into a fair agreement with someone loaning them capital at fixed rates, with no pretense of ownership.

If they sell shares, that is supposed to represent partial ownership and allow all the owners to collectively decide on strategy. It also brings with it the right to recall board members who go insane, like Musk or Zuckerberg. To prevent that these scumbags issue non-voting stock, or stock that has such reduced voting rights as to be essentially useless. Like SpaceX recently, all the IPO shares (class A) carry a tenth of the voting rights compared to the ones they kept (class B).