Hacker News Reader

Comment by psyc | Hacker News Reader

I'm really sorry for the off-topic, but I've been waiting for a chance to ask because I see it here very, very often. What are people intending to denote with the "private" in "private company", especially where the company is so obviously and well-known to be public[ally traded]? What are you trying to distinguish it from by calling it private? Are you just pointing out it's not the government or quasi-governmental? Are you emphasizing that it has its own prerogatives?

Sorry, this has just been becoming a peeve for me on this site. I just want to know what you're trying to express by calling a company that is not privately owned, "private". Thanks.

View on HN

The term "private company" has no relation to whether or not it is traded publicly. It simply means the company is not owned by or controlled by (in some sense) the government, but by "private" individuals

I guessed. I still don't understand why it is necessary to differentiate a category with 1.7 million members from a category with 17 members. Nobody here is ever, ever, ever (almost) discussing government corporations. I don't understand why people don't just say the 1st amendment doesn't apply to corporations. Everyone would know what they mean. Adding "private" suggests they are distinguishing it from something else. And maybe they are, but it always sounds like they're either misspeaking, confused, or repeating a meme.

Aren't most universities public companies even in USA? I know some of them are private, but there must be way more than 17 public ones. Add all the public schools, police departments etc, and you get quite a lot of them.

The key is in your last paragraph: the companies in question are privately owned in the sense of "private property". In the context of (American) public policy, due to factors such as the First Amendment, the distinction of a company being governmental/public vs non-governmental/private is much more likely to be relevant than it being publicly/privately traded.

My point is 0.0000006% of companies are governmental. In the context of the discussion, nobody is even thinking of those. So, “private” as a qualifier is hot air. It sounds ignorant to me.

Ignorant of what? Publicly (as in government) owned base infrastructure companies (like telecoms, to which Google et. al. are pretty similar in these ethics cases) are not rare in the world at all.

You got it, he is emphasizing the fact that google is not a part of the government. I agree that this distinction is kind of annoying for some reason.

I feel the exact same way. I suspect "Private Company" is being used in relation to Public/Private Sector and not in relation to whether or not the company is publicly traded.

I feel like your sense of it might be right. But even then, you can count the number of public sector "companies" (like Fannie and Freddie) on one hand, so it just strikes me as such a bizarre distinction.

It's not a bizarre distinction. The discussion is about free speech, and a common talking point has to do with comparing the actions of companies to the protections laid out for free speech in the American first amendment.

However, the first amendment is a restriction on government, not a restriction on private individuals or corporations.

Private equity groups are private. My uncle’s construction company is private. Google isn’t private in any sense that isn’t confusing. Why not just say that the 1st amendment doesn’t apply to corporations? That seems clear to me.

And as an aside, how many of us really need to be reminded, several times per day, of the scope of the 1st amendment? Really? Isn’t it more likely it’s a tired debate stopper?

>"And as an aside, how many of us really need to be reminded, several times per day, of the scope of the 1st amendment? Really? Isn’t it more likely it’s a tired debate stopper? "

My feelings exactly. It doesn't accomplish anything and literally adds nothing to the debate. Does the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines imposed and cruel and unusual punishment only apply to the government too? Clearly, we can talk about the spirit of the Bill of Rights and apply that to things that aren't literally the government.

> It doesn't accomplish anything and literally adds nothing to the debate.

It's important because to many people (myself included) the spirit of the freedom of speech referred to in the 1st Amendment is that force (i.e. the exercise of government power) is not an appropriate or legitimate response to speech. Censorship in the broad sense involving hosting decisions by these organizations owned and run by private individuals is not a violation of the freedom of speech, because it does not involve the use of force.

> Does the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines imposed and cruel and unusual punishment only apply to the government too?

Essentially, yes. The general principle applies to any organization which would take it upon itself to impose fines or punishment… which basically means the government, because the government doesn't let anyone else do that in its territory. For any organization other than the government this rule would go without saying, but since the government claims to be able to impose fines and punishment according to its own rules, unfettered by the rules of proportional response and natural law, this limitation must be made explicit.

>And as an aside, how many of us really need to be reminded, several times per day, of the scope of the 1st amendment? Really?

Yes, that's why people are pre-emptively raising the status of the corporations in question as private - to head off the discussion you're tired of hearing.

Despite that, instead of discussing what the proper ambit of content review should exist, 80% of the thread is still debating whether or not editorial control should exist in the first place; the exact same type of boring, rehashed discussion that adds nothing of value.

Now we're here having a meta discussion about the discussion that ALSO adds nothing of value, so it looks like no matter where we go there's no shortage of ink that leads nowhere :(.

"Man, I really wish people would focus on discussing something more impactful than the same old procedural arguments".

Hah! By saying that you're also not focusing on the real issue. Got You! Hypocrite much? /s

That's why I've got a frowny face there :).

In America you can count the number of public sector 'companies' on one hand but in others you cannot.

And every once in a while, government does take over a company, like GM for a long time was a public company.

Uhh, this might be a language difference - here the term "public" company usually means a company that's majorly owned by a government.

Companies owned by private individuals (whether they're publicly traded on a stock market or not) are usually referred to as "private".

So that's what I meant - a company not controlled by a government and has no accountability beyond its private owners.

The reason a distinction is drawn is because government has more rules it must follow when interacting with the public than google. Non-governmental entities in the united states are less regulated than the government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com