Why can't we just have a publicly owned video site that is paid for by all of us? We all use YouTube so it seems like a prime fit for public infrastructure. This would guarantee 1A rights to political speech and journalism, as well as remove advertising and engagement incentives.
The concept of "publicly owned" is interesting. When a company is listed on an open stock exchange and anybody is allowed to purchase a piece of ownership and be able to vote as a shareholder, that is "privately owned." When a "company" is controlled by the government and the public has no say in who is appointed to make decisions for that organization, the company is "publicly owned." For a publicly owned entity, the public can, in theory, vote in a politician who can appoint somebody to appoint somebody to control the entity.
So privately owned companies can be directly controlled by their owners in proportion to the amount of ownership. Publicly owned companies cannot usually be directly controlled by their owners, but can be indirectly controlled in proportion to the political power of the owner.
> 90% of all stock is owned institutionally. It is impossible to compare the stock market with a representative democracy. In the former, the wealthy rule, in the latter, the poor have a chance by virtue of sheer numbers.
In a private company, you have no chance of appeal. In a government, you at least have elections. The worst most corrosive parts of our government come from its contact with the wealthy and the corporate sector and those aspiring to become them.
> "Any representative body would do better than a corporate monarchy."
In theory I wanna agree with you, but in practice, "representative bodies" often represent their corporate masters far more than they do the will of the people.
It's a complex topic to really dig into, but I think you can at least say this briefly: Representative bodies at least have the potential to cooperatively work to their constituent's benefit. A monarchy can only be forced to do so out of fear.
