I'm not a fan of the administration by any means but a lot of democracies do this. Public/Private partnerships are commonplace in Europe.

▲

kelnos 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Is it common for this sort of company, though? I can see public-private partnerships making sense for infrastructure, for example, but a social media company? That just sounds like a way for a country to censor and push propaganda.

▲

Jensson 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Governments are much better at free speech than companies are, the US government is much more for free speech than Facebook or Google or Apple or Microsoft is etc.

So it is common for Governments to cooperate with media to ensure they remain independent and not just push corporate propaganda, not just to push government propaganda.

	▲	SilverbeardUnix 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		If you actually believe this then I do not know what to tell you.

▲

SilverbeardUnix 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

No it isn't, this is an attempt to censor and push propaganda.

▲

rs186 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's irrelevant. Did this happen frequently in the US history? The US does not simply adopt France's laws but makes their own for a reason.

	▲	SilverbeardUnix 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's not irrelevant. The parent claimed the US was taking after China; I'm mentioning that this is not uncommon in democracies and places not named China. If you pull anything else from my comment then you are reaching for something that isn't there.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

jay_kyburz 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, I don't mind the public profiting if public money and or concessions were made to set up the business. And especially for bailouts!