“The term interlocking directorship in its strictest sense refers to the situation in which a member of the board of directors of one corporation also serves as a member of the board of directors of another corporation.
A broader and more useful definition is the situation in which (1) a member of the board of directors of a company, (2) a top executive of that company or (3) a close relative (e.g., wife or father) of a member of the board of directors or of a top executive of that company serves as a member of the board of directors of another corporation.
Interlocking directorships have long been used by corporations to maintain and expand their power. For example, they can be used to form a cartel, which is a form of collusion between firms in the same industry aimed at restricting output and increasing prices. They can also be used to gain influence or control over major suppliers or customers.
Moreover, interlocking directorships can be an effective tool in influencing the political system. For example, a monopoly can use it to help persuade other companies, even those in very different industries, to assist in lobbying efforts to prevent antitrust laws from being enforced with regard to the monopoly or to allow it to extend its monopoly to new product lines.”
Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey’s explanation of simultaneous banning of free speech of Donald J. Trump – President of the United States:
“If folks do not agree with our rules and enforcement, they can simply go to another internet service. This concept was challenged last week when a number of foundational internet tool providers also decided not to host what they found dangerous. I do not believe this was coordinated.”
So, Dorsey says they can go to another internet service? But simultaneously, the ONLY real competitor to Twitter, Parler was de-platformed by all of the available service providers. Technically, there may not be any board member sitting on any of these other boards, but it is painfully obvious that this and many actions in both social and main stream media ARE coordinated. The fact that the alternative to Twitter, Parler was growing at a meteoric rate after all the bans by Twitter, and all the platforms Amazon, Apple, Google simultaneously de-platformed Parler is a clear violation of anti-Trust and was meant to “substantially reduce” competition. The ONLY real competition Twitter had was for some time put out of business and as of this writing is still attempting to get back on-line. Dorsey’s explanation is by any sane measure absurd on its face given the facts. We will shortly see if there is an anti-Trust division of the Justice Department and whether we have free speech left in these divided states of America.