I think I'll be the oddball here, and lightly agree with the gist of the comment. "Company" as per dictionary definition is "a number of individuals assembled or associated together; group of people" and in this context, "business" is at least equally as accurate, if not more so. Because you can be a "company" of chorus singers that go door-to-door giving out free song, but "business" much more precisely means you provide something in exchange for currency, either by yourself or as part of a larger group, and really "software" can be set up to be a "zero person" company, something capable of making money regardless of the people involved. That's something you can really sell.

I think the reason this comment is so disliked is because it's strongly worded as if the original word usage was a horrible, systemic mistake.

> we as a society need to stop

This is unnecessary. Sure, the vocabulary choice would probably be improved a bit with "business", but it really didn't take away from the story. If not for it saying "one-person" in the title, it might haven taken slightly longer to process "Oh, solo entrepreneur, got it" vs "small company with a few employees" - which is not totally insignificant. It's a bit of a difference between a personal choice that affects one person vs. a leader and some followers who are being taken down a different path.

a company is a separate legal entity, not a collection of humans

Not only is this completely wrong from a legal and business standpoint, why would we even need this as a society?

I find the term personally confusing when only one individual is involved. Most definitions of the word include multiple people. It would seem that's an unpopular opinion here. Meh, can't win them all.

It's about establishing and limiting legal liability. Being able to establish a solo business as a company means that you don't lose your house and possessions if your company fails.

There is very little liability protection for a single-member company. You are usually going to be personally liable for your actions, and can get sued individually along with the company. Incorporation / LLC does not protect you from acts where you are also personally liable, and it does not shield your personal assets in that case either.

Edit: in the US, that is.

This depends on the country. Most (single member) companies in EU countries have excellent protections in place for directors and shareholders as long as you don't do anything illegal.

This.

For Canadians: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc.nsf/eng/cs06641.html

What? This is 100% incorrect. Unless you make obvious errors, all of your personal assets are protected.

> Like shareholders of a corporation, all LLC owners are protected from personal liability for business debts and claims. This means that if the business itself can't pay a creditor—such as a supplier, a lender, or a landlord—the creditor cannot legally come after an LLC member's house, car, or other personal possessions.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/llc-basics-30163.htm...

Obvious errors being breaking the law, paying for your business loans with personal funds, etc.

The main issue for single-member LLCs in the US is to actually operate it as a separate entity. Don't share assets, accounts, etc. Don't personally guarantee debt unless you absolutely have to (and then you'll be liable for that). And of course you're still liable if you personally break the law. If you hire an employee and they assault a customer or something, your company may be sued like any larger company, but they probably won't be able to pierce the veil and go after you personally to collect.

A lot of people fought for the legal framework to become competitive enough to include single member entities in the word company, as it inherits all the privileges of multi member companies without the administrative hassle or prerequisites. Another definition just because your society hasnt caught up to the legal benefits conveyed would be redundant and not be informative at all.

This is a significant reason why you would lack consensus on this opinion.

Most single person consultant companies have more than one shareholder.

In the UK my mother was the company secretary for my Fathers company he used for consulting.