You called them private companies, and I'm disputing that.

This distinction is important, because the properties that make it non-private (being owned by a public collective) also happen to make people particularly vulnerable to spyware and data collection. That which is owned by a public corporation is owned by its shareholders collectively. Major shareholders can therefor lobby corporations to divulge data that is technically legally theirs. When you consider how many corporations Black Rock and Vanguard are invested in, there isn't much that you can touch without generating some meta-data level evidence of what you're doing, where, and when that they won't have access to.

If things were truly privately controlled, nobody would be able to lobby a bank to divulge information about its clients.

(1/2)

Hi, Lemmy is giving me the infinite spinning wheel when I try to reply, so I'm gonna try to send it in two. Hope you don't mind that I have a lot to say in response to your comment haha

I think you’re overlooking that they are publicly traded companies.

That has not been overlooked at all. It's because they are publicly traded that they are publicly owned. It would be strange to conclude publicly traded -> privately owned without expanding on it at all. I will elaborate on this.

It’s a bit of a stretch to say that because they’re publicly traded that means things are a-ok with them assigning scores to people.

At no point did I say this was okay. My comment was entirely descriptive and made no prescription for scoring citizens. I actually later said that the corporate structure was vulnerable to these scores, which would imply that I think it's a problem.

In conclusion, these companies need to be regulated since they basically control people’s destinies through a non-democratically controlled system.

To which I would say they already are regulated and this is the result.

I'll explain everything in more detail...

Private Ownership:

• the fact of being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body. (I googled "define private ownership")
• Private companies are owned by those who establish them and those invited to invest in them. The public-at-large cannot buy shares or otherwise invest in private companies at their own discretion. Public Ownership:
• A public company is a company that has sold a portion of itself to the public via an initial public offering (IPO), meaning shareholders have a claim to part of the company's assets and profits. (Same source)
• ownership by the government of an asset, corporation, or industry. (I googled "define public ownership")

So, private ownership is opposed to both the state and public bodies, implying that a public body isn't necessarily a state (according to google). This complicates things once you get into the nature of corporations and their relationship with the government (I'll expand on this), so a better operating definition is probably the second one, which means: it is private if the general public can't by shares.

Countless definitions refer to public ownership both as government ownership, or publicly traded. Choosing one definition does not contradict the other. Let me repeat : saying public ownership refers to government ownership does not contradict that it also refers to publicly traded ownership. This is why it's wrong to conclude that these corporations are private. They are public traded, and are therefor public. This shouldn't be surprising, it's in the word. That which is public is not private, and that which is private is not public.

People get caught up on the fact that private citizens can own shares. It's often used to conclude that the corporation they hold shares in a therefor privately owned. This is flawed logic, because private units can be a part of a public collective. When referencing a public corporation's ownership, we are not referencing any single individual, but a collective, in the exact same way that "the public" refers to a collective of private citizens of a state. It's also directly contradicted in the definition: "... owned by a private individual or organization." A. Singular.

(2/2)

State: State, political organization of society, or the body politic, or, more narrowly, the institutions of government.

Government: the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

Corporation:

• a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
• specific legal form of organization of persons and material resources, chartered by the state, for the purpose of conducting business.
• Also from Britannica: "As contrasted with the other two major forms of business ownership, the sole proprietorship and the partnership, the corporation is distinguished by a number of characteristics that make it a more-flexible instrument for large-scale economic activity, particularly for the purpose of raising large sums of capital for investment. Chief among these features are: (1) limited liability, meaning that capital suppliers are not subject to losses greater than the amount of their investment; (2) transferability of shares, whereby voting and other rights in the enterprise may be transferred readily from one investor to another without reconstituting the organization under law; (3) juridical personality, meaning that the corporation itself as a fictive “person” has legal standing and may thus sue and be sued, may make contracts, and may hold property in a common name; and (4) indefinite duration, whereby the life of the corporation may extend beyond the participation of any of its incorporators. The owners of the corporation in a legal sense are the shareholders, who purchase with their investment of capital a share in the proceeds of the enterprise and who are nominally entitled to a measure of control over the financial management of the corporation."

The definitions themselves begin to show why the relationship between corporations and the government is a lot more complicated than private companies. Corporations have to be recognized by law, and law is enforced by the state, therefor corporations only exists at the whim of the state. What's more, is the means of trade for these stocks is also controlled by the state.

The first stock exchange to exist in the world was the Dutch East India Company. It was founded by the States General of the Netherlands, which consisted of the Dutch senate and the House of Representatives. The New York Stock exchange was founded in part by Alexander Hamilton, a statesman, founding father, and Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. In the United States, securities exchanges like the NYSE are primarily regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is the key federal law that governs securities exchanges, including the NYSE.

I would be remiss if I didn't point out that both of these entities enjoyed quite a bit of independence from their governments, but that independence is not complete, was granted in its establishment by the state, and has been gradually lessened with time.

That said, it would also be prudent for me to point out that corporations tend to govern themselves. NYSE is subject to its own set of rules and regulations. The exchange has its own regulatory body, the NYSE Regulation, Inc., which is responsible for overseeing compliance with the NYSE's rules and federal securities laws. Many decisions are put to a vote by the shareholders. So, it contains a governing body and engages in internal politics? That's a state!

Corporations are a state in and of themselves

Yes, that conclusion was properly derived just from the definitions of state, government, and corporation, however I'm not the only one to describe them as such. German sociologist Max Weber used the term "state within a state" to describe modern bureaucracy in general. One prominent thinker who discussed the concept of a corporation as a "state within a state" was R.H. Tawney, a British economic historian and social critic. In his influential work "The Acquisitive Society" (1920), Tawney critiqued the influence of large corporations and argued that they operated as powerful entities with their own interests, often independent of the interests of the broader society.

Why does this matter for credit scores?

Well, credit scores are already implemented by federal agencies:

• Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): HUD oversees the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which provides mortgage insurance on loans made by FHA-approved lenders. Lenders use credit scores, among other factors, to determine eligibility for FHA loans. So, the fed can reference your credit score to deny housing loans.
• Department of Defense (DoD): The DoD uses credit history as one of the factors in determining security clearances for military personnel and civilian employees. This means your fiscal credit score has influence in whether the fed considers you a security risk.

There are more but I actually don't feel like listing them, they mostly all boil down to security clearance or financial restriction.

Here's an important distinction: credit scores are restrictive on the individual. In other words, credit scores regulate what you're able to do with your finances.

The American government also has a history of implementing other scores that more closely resemble a social credit score. These include but are not limited to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG). These metrics are used by the American government to impose regulations and taxation on corporations for better or for worse. You can tell it works too, because companies often increase their DEI score through their marketing, which is why you see so many corporations pushing a moral agenda rather than advertising their products.

So, the American fed uses various scoring systems to regulate both individuals and corporations.

In conclusion, these companies need to be regulated since they basically control people’s destinies through a non-democratically controlled system.

Just to quickly get this out of the way, my comment that you're responding to already directly refuted the second half of this statement when I said "all BLK shares have voting rights, meaning that shareholders of BlackRock have a say in the company’s affairs in line with the proportion of ownership they hold in the firm." The fact that this has not led to the results you desire doesn't mean they aren't democratic, they demonstrably are. It means that the democratic method was insufficient in this case.

The more important point here, is that to ask the government to regulate corporations in order to get rid of credit scores will lead to the exact opposite conclusion you want. The government already uses credit scores, and they use it to control people. Giving them the avenue to implement corporate social credit scores would be an extremely bad idea.

Also, top down regulation over a corporate body will directly result in greater control over that corporate body (regulation is control). We don't want the government to have too much control over corporate bodies that already have control over us. We don't want to put ourselves closer to being a nation controlled by corporations that are controlled by the state. That is called fascism.

Anyway, thanks for reading. Have a nice day :)