Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lammy | Hacker News Reader

> Bethesda doesn't think anything.

It even kind of irks me when people talk about “Bethesda” when it's really “Microsoft Corporation presents Microsoft Gaming presents Zenimax Media presents Bethesda Softworks presents Bethesda Game Studios”.

Not picking on you in particular since the same thing happens with iD Software, Github, NPM, and many many more. I feel like there's a collective lack of straightforward language to discuss the influence of this kind of corporate structure. Falling back to the singular-subsidiary name with the rest unspoken is probably exactly what they want.

View on HN

I wouldn't know who Bethesda was owned by without going and looking it up. I personally don't think this kind of corporate structure should be allowed, too much controlled by too few.

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 meant it more in the sense of, as you said, "controlled by".

But really it could be anything else including new symbols.

You see, whatever you use would become instantly SO ABUNDANT that this symbol would get a whole new meaning.

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.

I don't see how it matters how, when or by whom the code was written.

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

You own Microsoft. It's a public company.

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.

Scale matters.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

A social wealth fund owns companies and isn't a named person. So does any pension fund.

Pensions are owned by people. Social wealth funds can be an exception if required. These are not difficult problems to solve.

> Pensions are owned by people.

No they aren't, that's the point of a defined-benefit system like a pension. You don't own it but instead get guaranteed payments from it.

Owning things involves risk; it's not always good.

You have a defined benefit pension? In the UK they've all gone contribution.

So my pension is owned by me. I can buy an annuity from that but there's no reason that can't be a service company owned by a person just like insurance.

Again, it's solvable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com