All of that is completely true and also irrelevant. The point isn’t the specific details, the point is the idea that “perpetual control” is not the default modus operandi of the structure of our system. As to the specific details of where that line is drawn, that’s something that’s up for debate. All we need as a starting point is to acknowledge that unquestioned, perpetual individual control of an entity that can create and destroy the lives of millions has at least the POTENTIAL to be a dangerous social ill, and the specific details of how we address that can come from there. If you cannot see or acknowledge that at any level, then we’re not even looking at reality from the same perspective, and we’re not starting from the same priors, so there’s no point in discussing it any further - there’s no point of agreement we’ll be able to reach.

Look, this isn’t even the standard operating procedure of society. Corporations are the ONLY situation where we seem to have decided providing the seed of creation equates to perpetual ownership.

ANYTHING else you create comes with a time limit before it takes on a life of its own beyond you.

You wrote a book? Your copyright WILL expire and it WILL be out of your control.

You invented something? That’s great. Eventually your patent expires and it becomes publicly usable.

Hell, the closest equivalent to a company? Is having a BABY. You put in a seed to create something, you do a ton of work to raise it to function. Are you going to suggest that a parent should have perpetual control over their children and the things they produce as well? And it has been established by LEGAL PRECEDENT that a corporation IS a person.

ALL of these things are accepted default procedure in our society. In NO other situation do we consider creation to be equivalent to perpetual ownership of all aspects of a thing. YOU are arguing the exception, not us.

There is a significant difference between “lose control of the company” and “not being the exclusive beneficiary of the success of the company”, and it’s a strawman argument to suggest otherwise.

Even with a 1 billion dollar cap, the vast majority of companies are not worth nearly a billion dollars, and of those that are, you would have to double that before that owner would not have a controlling interest, and while I acknowledge that the owner losing control of the company is not necessarily an intentional result of this kind of rule, by the time a company reaches a value where that would even be a threat, they have such an outsized impact on society through their operation that it is actually irresponsible for any single person or small group of people to have such control. Organizations can grow to have outsized impact on millions of lives, entire communities, or even the direction of history. What is reprehensible isn’t capping their control of such an organization - it’s allowing that control to impact the world with absolutely no check by those its operation affects. I don’t know your country of origin, but if you are American you at least pay lip service to the idea that power derives from the consent of those over whom it is wielded. I would suggest to you the radical interpretation is that that should only apply to government when extremely large companies have much, much more power to impact peoples’ daily lives.

do they start losing control of shares until they’re below that threshold?

Sounds good to me. Dole them out to employees.

There is no way anybody would shut him down as long as he’s not violating the conditions imposed by the judgement. As long as he is working, every dime he’s making is going to pay his victims. It wouldn’t make ANY sense whatsoever to shut him down.

Possibly. But it’s also pretty common in many instances of technology adoption that as more users come, the quality gets worse, and while open source doesn’t have to worry about a shareholder-driven profit motive driving it, it’s still easy to wind up with a muddled focus. I wouldn’t expect that Linux and all of the associated software projects that make the functional desktop are going to be an exception overall. If you’re an open source developer working on a project now, basically any user is some form of power user, and it’s easier to find consensus of what to prioritize on a project not only because Linux users tend to be better about understanding how their software works and are actually helpful in further development, they’re also likely to direct development towards features that make software more open, compatible, and useful.

Now fast forward to a future where Linux is the majority desktop OS, those power users are maybe 5% of the software’s user base, and every major project’s forum is inundated with thousands of users screaming about how hard the software is to use and, when bug reports and feature requests are actually coherent, they mostly boil down to demands for simpler, easier to understand UIs. I can easily imagine the noise alone could lead to an exodus of frustrated developers.

Some things are better for NOT trying to be the answer for everyone.

“does not intend”

They’re collecting accidentally. Whoopsie!

Username checks out

That’s a gatekeepers argument.

I’m not saying that IS what’s going to happen. Please don’t put words in my mouth. But to say there is ZERO concern that it CAN happen is to ignore a very realistic scenario.

You’re right, I’m not a part of the target demographic. But that’s not point. The point is if that demographic wants what is being offered. Sure, this is targeted at them, but is their audience out there asking for this? If there is an audience, absolutely, they should have the show they want.

I’m not ignoring that there have been varied tones in various Trek shows. I am however, pointing out that not all of those tones have been successful, and that’s a cause for concern. Star Trek isn’t some public domain franchise that can be picked up at any time by anyone, Paramount’s begrudging allowance for fan projects not withstanding. The success of the franchise and the ability to keep new Trek coming depends on the success of the series that are produced. If a series cannot sustain an audience, it hurts the viability of the franchise as a whole in the eyes of the people who fund production, and that is a legitimate concern.

But while I don’t know that there is a teenage Star Trek audience looking for a show targeted at them, I KNOW there is an audience looking for the tone of the older Star Trek show tones because they are vocally and visibly looking for it right now.

I’m not arguing a Star Trek show targeted to teenagers shouldn’t exist because I don’t want it. That’s a nonsense argument. I’m arguing the simple reality that there are limited resources for producing these shows, and Paramount is the only company that gets to make them. This is not some projected negativity - this is simple reality. And for all the idealized, lofty goals there are, if they don’t establish and keep an audience, Paramount will shut them down. It’s not gatekeeping to suggest building an audience where one doesn’t exist yet is harder than keeping an existing one, and it’s a gamble with the future of the franchise to paint such a wide target, particularly without an anchor series that you can point to and say “This is the secure flagship series we’re building these other series around.” That doesn’t exist. Every single one of the current series is in a precarious position. That is a cause for concern.

Also, on a side note, I would like to point out that many of us became Star Trek fans during the TNG/DS9/Voyager era, and we were teenagers then. Those shows were not specifically targeted at us, but they still captured our imagination and won us over. A show doesn’t have to be about teenagers to appeal to teenagers. Again, this is not to say this SHOULDN’T exist, but you are making it sound like the idea that thinking Paramount could focus their efforts elsewhere instead is somehow an attack on teenagers, and some form of discrimination. I assure you, that is not my intent, and I don’t think it’s anybody else’s either. There are lots of reasons to be concerned this is not the right path, or that it might not succeed, other than having some kind of agenda against the young.

I see your last response to me as a bit of an overreaction, but regardless, it’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I apologize for allowing it to overcome me and overreacting myself to make this response seem overly hostile, but at the end of the day it certainly sounds like there is no argument that could be made to you that would legitimize someone’s concern that Starfleet Academy might not be the right path for the franchise to take, and if that’s the case, you’re right that there’s no point in continuing the discussion. I hope you continue to enjoy the franchise we love and wish you the best, regardless.

Goodbye.

A totally valid point of view.

But it’s also a valid point of view to point out that in spite of its fans, Enterprise was still canceled. And shows in the franchise being killed off frequently due to unsustainable interest is ultimately not good for the franchise as a whole, regardless of individual interest in particular iterations. The ultimate fear is that such a wide range of tones attempting to capture different audiences ultimately results in none of them capturing enough of an audience to justify their existence, and then the whole franchise gets written off for another dry spell like we had post-Enterprise. That’s not good for anyone.

But like I said, why do all of those other shows get a pass but suddenly Starfleet Academy is such a problem?

I don’t know if it’s necessarily that they get a pass. As you said, Enterprise was very poorly received by many fans, and that’s more or less directly attributable at least in part to its different tone. The other series have their naysayers too, although not necessarily on a tonal basis. It’s easy for us to look back now with the benefit of hindsight and say what worked and what didn’t. So I guess the question is, we live in an era now where we get more information about what is coming that we have ever had before. When Enterprise launched, it was more or less a black box to the fans until it was actually on the air. If we had known in advance the writers/directors’ intent about Enterprise’s tone while it was in production, and voiced concern, could the final product have been altered into a version of the show that would’ve succeeded better? We can’t know now, of course, but we’re in this situation with Starfleet Academy, and if there’s enough gut feeling that there’s potential for it to be handled badly, a cautious approach might be warranted. Being left in the production’s hands WITHOUT fan feedback on potential tonal shifts HAS backfired on trek shows before.

Again, the person I was originally responding to was not showing a basic concern. It was outright gatekeeping and a very different thing than what we’re currently discussing.

Fair enough.

This is a flagrantly disingenous comparison. The creation of Starfleet Academy and focusing on a new view with new characters in an area that we know deals with these things is no where nearly comparable as taking a pre-established moment and playing it in a different tone completely. The existence of this show does not undermine or overwrite the tone of any other show like you’re suggesting with that comparison.

It’s possible I wasn’t clear here. I’m not suggesting changing the tone of it as it already exists, but that if its original tone had been different the entire tone of the film and the universe would have been completely different as well. And while I agree that Star Trek has often had many different tones over the course of all the series and media, it’s one thing to have a tone for a particular episode or two parter, and another to have such a drastically different tone for an entire series. Additionally, while we DO explore Wesley’s situation at Starfleet academy, and other aspects of younger Starfleet cadets in episodes like the DS9 episode where a ship is entirely staffed by cadets, it’s still usually viewed not primarily through their eyes, but through the eyes of the established crew, keeping the tone of the series consistent overall. This is very different than say, hypothetically, changing gears in season 6 of TNG and deciding to make Wesley the main character.

That said, the TNG episode Lower Decks handles this idea extraordinarily well, so it’s entirely possible the entire thing will work and be fine. But it’s also equally possible it could be such a drastic tonal shift that it does not. I don’t see it as unreasonable or overreacting for longtime fans to, sight unseen given the scant information we DO know, view it with wariness.

There’s more to an established universe than just the lore and plot. The tone, setting, and ethos of the world are every bit as important as the factual nature of what’s already happened. I’m not going to make a claim that the idea of a teen drama in the Star Trek universe is inconsistent with reality of the Star Trek franchise’s universe, but it is fair to say it is inconsistent with the established tone. I’m not making the claim that’s going to mean it’s bad, but it is completely fair and valid for existing fans to voice concern about that tonal shift. The tone is no less important to a series than the events that take place within them. If Luke’s hand being sliced off in Empire Strikes Back was played as a comic, silly moment, even though the events are consistent with the established universe, and in fact exactly the same, the nature of the scene and the franchise in which it happens are altered. These are not trivial concerns.

So, you know when you see a woman, and you speak with her like a normal person and form a connection? Nothing good comes of that.

Instead of doing that, convince yourself in your head that saying even two words is going to end in disaster and then play on your phone and awkwardly pretend they aren’t there until they go away.

It’s hard, but with enough practice it will become second nature. You’ve got this!

That’s… Not the point of a franchise. The point of a franchise is to continue a story or path in a world from perspectives beyond that of our originating characters. The only criteria of a franchise is that it must take place in the same world.

That’s a bold claim to make, and it’s not unreasonable that someone would disagree with you on it. The point of an established universe is obviously the background that the universe brings. Otherwise you may as well just create an entirely new universe. And given that the background is the value of the universe, there is a limitation to how far you can reasonably expect to bend it before the interpretation of the universe shifts from “fresh” to “hostile”.

For example, I’m not a particularly big fan of the Avatar movies, but they’re clearly pushing a naturalistic, shamanistic anti-corporate utopian vision. It’s not my cup of tea, but that is what the universe IS. If the next movie comes out and the Nav’i create planet-wide Walmart franchise and spend two hours boosting their stock price, it is absolutely reasonable to look at that at the VERY least as a wasteful use of the franchise, and it is not negativity for fans of the franchise to complain that it is not what they signed up for.

Now, we can argue all day about where that line is, but to suggest there ISN’T one at all is extreme.