But they don't get to take part in the decision making with this equity stake either. The shares are non-voting while the government holds them, and revert to voting shares once sold to a private entity.

And they can say no to the government with the equity stake and the government can divest.

I'm not arguing they are exactly the same... I just think the author shouldn't state the hypothesis at the end of the article without examining it.

Frankly I think it's a good summary of why Intel may be too big to fail. It's just framed wrong.