Hacker News Reader

Right. Then the accurate description is that it's a state-owned commercial company, not a government agency.

Ownership by states doesn't make it a public service. It makes it a company whose shareholders happen to be governments. It still operates under corporate law, not administrative law, and it was explicitly removed from being a state service.

Calling that "not really private" is just rhetorical framing, not a legal or operational distinction.

View on HN

It's not privately owned so it's not really a private company even if it has to abide by the same laws. I don't get why you accuse me of rhetorical framing, it's what the ownership situation looks like.

Fair enough; we're using different definitions of "private."

I'm using it in the legal/operational sense relevant to whether a government service was withdrawn (agency vs company, public law vs company law). By that definition, it's a private company.

You're using it in a shareholder-ownership sense. That's a valid perspective, but it's a different question than the one being discussed here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com