Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 00:10 UTC, submitted by SReilly
Thread beginning with comment 454624
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-09-06
I had the impression that the original commenter was not a US citizen. Speaking from foreign perspective and potentially in a foreign first language; I think the sentence works fine to express the idea and provide relevant examples. Disney and Warner are both huge corporations legally obligated to manufacturer money for shareholders; content being the tools used in money manufacturing is incidental. They are both heavy handed corporations striving for a monopoly on content production and consumption. Even if not a monopoly, a duopoly is not much better nor is an oligarchy (can corporations be oligarchs?).
In general, the concern seems to be about mega-corporations exerting power over foreign governments and local foreign policy purely for the benefit of the corporation's bottom line regardless of how it affects consumers and/or foreign nations. I'd say that's a fair concern given US history of foreign policy and a government appearing to be bought and implemented to support businesses not citizens.
I'd sure like it if the US gov was less successful at pushing it's overbearing laws on us folk to the north.