Of course it would not pass muster, which is my point.
There is a giant 'non market force' at play there a certain kind of regulatory apparatus which most people understand exists for good reason.
This regulatory condition obviously supercedes 'fiduciary responsibility' of the Board.
Communications is a protected industry because powerful foreign interests can take control of narratives, precisely because people in the commons - including you and I - are fairly easily pursuaded.
'Truth' is really hard to do, it's a public good and it's why at the national level we have protections - and - it's why both Twitter, Google etc. as 'sources of information' fall under a different perspective of governance than say, a 'cracker company'.
I know you're arguing in good faith but don't you think putting crazy hypotheticals like Xi buying any US company is a little silly? There are probably better examples to further your point.
There is a giant 'non market force' at play there a certain kind of regulatory apparatus which most people understand exists for good reason.
This regulatory condition obviously supercedes 'fiduciary responsibility' of the Board.
Communications is a protected industry because powerful foreign interests can take control of narratives, precisely because people in the commons - including you and I - are fairly easily pursuaded.
'Truth' is really hard to do, it's a public good and it's why at the national level we have protections - and - it's why both Twitter, Google etc. as 'sources of information' fall under a different perspective of governance than say, a 'cracker company'.