How is the subject of potential regulation considered a stakeholder?

That's a bit like asking how the defendant in a legal case is an interested party.

Even if you think someone is guilty, it does make sense to allow them to at least submit their defense. And if they choose to use that time to advocate for their own promotion, let them.

▲

akerl_ 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They’re the most obvious stakeholder… the regulation is going to directly affect them.

▲

Spartan-S63 4 hours ago | parent [-]

No, the public at large are the stakeholders. The enterprise is the subject of the regulation.

▲

sdenton4 4 hours ago | parent [-]

"Stakeholder" literally means someone with a stake in the outcome, which is to say, those who will be affected by the decision. That can include a whole range of people+entities, including citizens (as a group) and the companies to be regulated.

▲

shimman 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes and the public are the stake holders for regulations, not a private corporation good fucking lord. Are you so neoliberal brained that you can't realize how bad it is, both for society and democratic nations, to have a critical aspect of your government captured by undemocratic private interests?

Regulatory capture is not a good thing. Companies that make money should have zero authoritative say, especially companies that pay for PACs to help sway elections in their favor:

https://www.anthropic.com/news/donate-public-first-action

	▲	tptacek 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Several people on this thread have aliased the terms "stakeholder" and "protagonist".