s/Facebook/any privately owned and controlled hardware-software platforms
I disagree with your sentiment. Being public/private doesn't make one more/less trustworthy. I would posit it is the business model of the company itself that should be given scrutiny.
Yes. It's privately owned, and publicly traded. Publicly owned would be like the USPS or national parks.
Yes we do (if you're a US citizen). You even get to vote for the "board of directors" so to speak (the legislative/executive branches of the US gov).
As for your other example, I can own quite a bit of a company and still get denied access to their offices and computer systems.
This high minded notion of "public owned" is quite different than what we are discussing here. The fact we're having this goofy conversation is sad.
I own part of Google. I can't take it home with me. I don't even know what that would mean.
> If I own it, I can get a permit to build on it.
It is indeed possible to get a permit to build on/use public grounds.
> If I own it, I can refuse to allow everyone else to use it.
You can vote for representation that could in theory restrict access to just you. The other owners probably wouldn't agree to it, though. There are a lot of owners who want open access.
I think you're confusing things here. You seem to be talking about having full ownership of something, as if partial ownership isn't a thing.
The public doesn't have a home, but if it did, it already took the national parks there. The public can get a permit to build there. The public can refuse to allow anyone else to use it. Remember: members of the public are not the public. "Anyone else" here actually includes members of the public (ie: you and I).
Just because I can (legally) buy a Ferrari doesn't mean I own one.
You have bought a Ferrari, so you own it.
Having performed an "Initial Public Offering" (IPO) means explicitly that the public has purchased, at least in part, ownership of your company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock
No. Members of the public can own stock. The public does not own stock.
> You have bought a Ferrari, so you own it.
No. I have not purchased a Ferrari, so I do not own one.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company
This link does not talk about public ownership.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector
This link talks about public ownership in the same way I have explained.
You are not the public. You are a member of the public.
Members of the public own stock, so the public owns stock. Your distinction here is pedantic at best, but generally plain wrong.
> No. I have not purchased a Ferrari, so I do not own one.
It seems the concept of a metaphor struggles to take grasp. I'll leave progress in this area to those certified.
> This link does not talk about public ownership.
It's very literally the first line.
If you're going to be a pedant, be right.
It really just seems like you're uncomfortable with the fact that you're wrong about this, having resorted to name calling. It's ok, this really is a common mistake to make. I do encourage you to read the Wikipedia links you sent though. I think they do a good job of explaining what I have said. Just remember that individuals are not the public. The public actually owns national parks. The whole public as an entity.
Actually I just found another Wikipedia page which may help elucidate this for you, if you're still having trouble with the links you posted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_ownership
I hope the first two lines will make things clear :-)
“A public company is one that issues shares that are publicly traded, meaning the shares are available for anyone to buy and sell on the open market, usually very easily. Note that publicly traded companies are not publicly owned -- they are not owned or controlled by any government.”
You seem to be equating members of the public with the entirety of the public. You need to get this misunderstanding straightened out to correctly understand the concepts being discussed here.
If you're going to be a pedant, be right.
> In most cases, public companies are private enterprises in the private sector, and "public" emphasizes their reporting and trading on the public markets.
Ostensibly, no. But practically, there is a single majority shareholder who can choose to do pretty much whatever he wants with the company. So... kind of?
The point here is that facebook is particularly abhorrent. It's a risk to offload any data to anyone outside of your own self, but it's a serious mistake to interact with a zuck product in any way.