Do you not believe a public corporation has a right to do what its board think is best for the shareholders?
Poor Trumppers!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Do you not believe a public corporation has a right to do what its board think is best for the shareholders?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
That's because you're fake.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
CPB is non-profit. It is not a publicly traded profit corporation.
"The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is an American publicly funded non-profit corporation, created in 1967 to promote and help support public broadcasting.[3] The corporation's mission is to ensure universal access to non-commercial, high-quality content and telecommunications services. It does so by distributing more than 70 percent of its funding to more than 1,400 locally owned public radio and television stations.[4]
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created on November 7, 1967, when U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. The new organization initially collaborated with the National Educational Television network—which would be replaced by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Ward Chamberlin Jr. was the first operating officer.[5] On March 27, 1968, it was registered as a nonprofit corporation in the District of Columbia.[6] In 1969, the CPB talked to private groups to start PBS, an entity intended by the CPB to circumvent controversies engendered by certain NET public affairs programs that aired in the late 1960s and engendered opposition by politically conservative public figures, potentially threatening the medium's future viability.[7]
On February 26, 1970, the CPB formed National Public Radio (NPR), a network of public-radio stations that began operating the following year. Unlike PBS, NPR produces and distributes programming.[6]"
CPB serves the public interest, not shareholders.
CPB is non-profit. It is not a publicly traded profit corporation.
"The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is an American publicly funded non-profit corporation, created in 1967 to promote and help support public broadcasting.[3] The corporation's mission is to ensure universal access to non-commercial, high-quality content and telecommunications services. It does so by distributing more than 70 percent of its funding to more than 1,400 locally owned public radio and television stations.[4]
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created on November 7, 1967, when U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. The new organization initially collaborated with the National Educational Television network—which would be replaced by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Ward Chamberlin Jr. was the first operating officer.[5] On March 27, 1968, it was registered as a nonprofit corporation in the District of Columbia.[6] In 1969, the CPB talked to private groups to start PBS, an entity intended by the CPB to circumvent controversies engendered by certain NET public affairs programs that aired in the late 1960s and engendered opposition by politically conservative public figures, potentially threatening the medium's future viability.[7]
On February 26, 1970, the CPB formed National Public Radio (NPR), a network of public-radio stations that began operating the following year. Unlike PBS, NPR produces and distributes programming.[6]"
CPB serves the public interest, not shareholders.
Last edited:
cawacko
Well-known member
Did you read the post I responded to? (because your question has nothing to do with what Poli wrote and my response)
cawacko
Well-known member
So this CPB is going to purchase Twitter? Where's its capital coming from?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Perhaps CPB should begin a social media service, or create and/or/fund a separate non-profit social media service.
Now that we've seen how trashed a for-profit social media service can get, it is time to see what a different model would produce. One that is focused on meritorious content rather than volume. The algorithms would be different.
Now that we've seen how trashed a for-profit social media service can get, it is time to see what a different model would produce. One that is focused on meritorious content rather than volume. The algorithms would be different.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
No, I did not propose that.
If you would like to know where the funding comes from, that information was included in the post you just responded to.
No, I did not propose that.
If you would like to know where the funding comes from, that information was included in the post you just responded to.
cawacko
Well-known member
It doesn't state where it would have capital to compete with the likes of Elon Musk, Blackstone etc. to purchase firms like Twitter.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
Then maybe it should not try to purchase twitter. I have no idea why you thought it should. I never proposed it.
Then maybe it should not try to purchase twitter. I have no idea why you thought it should. I never proposed it.
cawacko
Well-known member
Maybe I’m not following your argument. I see you saying capitalism doesn’t handle stuff well and the CPB should be in charge of Twitter (and maybe other social media sites). How does that happen if the CPB doesn’t create the site? Shareholders just hand over control of the business to the CPB?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
Please forgive me if I gave an incorrect impression.. I do not see CPB buying Twitter. What I propose is that CPB expands to fund a non-profit social media service with more stringent moderation. One that does not have algorithms which lead people into extremism and sensationalism simply for the sake of increasing volume and exposure.
Now that twitter and the others are getting a rep of being trashy, it's time for one that is run differently as an option.
Please forgive me if I gave an incorrect impression.. I do not see CPB buying Twitter. What I propose is that CPB expands to fund a non-profit social media service with more stringent moderation. One that does not have algorithms which lead people into extremism and sensationalism simply for the sake of increasing volume and exposure.
Now that twitter and the others are getting a rep of being trashy, it's time for one that is run differently as an option.
cawacko
Well-known member
Where is the CPB going to get the money to to basically create a new Twitter and just run it differently? (and compete with other social media companies?). What would be their business plan to raise revenue? Or would tax payers fully find it?
I guarantee you they don’t have money in their budget for what you are proposing. Where will it come from?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
Why not tax the greedy rich who are getting fabulously wealthy as America is bitterly divided by the propaganda they fund?
To me, that only makes sense. I see them as having contributed to the bitter polarization in our nation, that they might then have free reign to corrupt and buy our government. Once they co-opted the Republican party, no way many Trumpists are going to side with 'horrible liberals' to vote corrupt Republicans out. They are far too embroiled with culture wars.
Big money has sewn the seeds of hatred that paralyzed our politics. Big money should pay for the damage caused.
Look at what social media does to people! It feeds off of hatred. It makes money from hatred. Tax the living daylights out of social media AND the greedy rich. I see them as having direct responsibility for the sad state of our nation.
Why not tax the greedy rich who are getting fabulously wealthy as America is bitterly divided by the propaganda they fund?
To me, that only makes sense. I see them as having contributed to the bitter polarization in our nation, that they might then have free reign to corrupt and buy our government. Once they co-opted the Republican party, no way many Trumpists are going to side with 'horrible liberals' to vote corrupt Republicans out. They are far too embroiled with culture wars.
Big money has sewn the seeds of hatred that paralyzed our politics. Big money should pay for the damage caused.
Look at what social media does to people! It feeds off of hatred. It makes money from hatred. Tax the living daylights out of social media AND the greedy rich. I see them as having direct responsibility for the sad state of our nation.
cawacko
Well-known member
What? Let me try to understand here. We have entrepreneurs create these companies and you want the government to essentially take them over (wipe out all shareholder value) and run them.
Ok, best of luck with that strategy
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
I said nothing of the sort.
But I am compelled to remark:
A prepondency to have to redefine an unliked view, turn it into something else, is indicative of a lack of confidence in one's own view.
I said nothing of the sort.
But I am compelled to remark:
A prepondency to have to redefine an unliked view, turn it into something else, is indicative of a lack of confidence in one's own view.
cawacko
Well-known member
I’m not a mind reader. Your initial point was about the CPB taking over Twitter, or creating its own Twitter, or something along those lines. Then you go off a tangent about the Republican Party and other things that has nothing to do with a government agency taking over Twitter. I can’t follow your position.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
And it's so much easier to respond to something invented rather than what I actually said.
And it's so much easier to respond to something invented rather than what I actually said.
cawacko
Well-known member
Tax the rich to allow the gov't to spend $44 billion to purchase Twitter?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
Just shows how little of what I write is actually fully understood.
And how some things I did not write are somehow invented.
I never said the government was going to buy twitter.
Just shows how little of what I write is actually fully understood.
And how some things I did not write are somehow invented.
I never said the government was going to buy twitter.
cawacko
Well-known member
How is a gov't agency going to run social media? Is it just going to take over companies after they are created? (and not all social media that we use is created in the U.S.)