4 ms·

good idea...but less profitable, though Facebook will continue to track these "banned" users as they roam around the network and trade on their information anyw

by vaxman 6y ago

good idea...but less profitable, though Facebook will continue to track these "banned" users as they roam around the network and trade on their information anyway.

tomc1985 6y ago
So sick of "but that's less profitable"... these companies should exist to serve their customers, not shareholders
- wraithy 6y ago
  I'm not sure if you're serious about this, but it seems very short sighted. If this were the case, I don't think the word "company" would still apply. However, capitalism doesn't leave consumers with no options - vote with your wallet!
  - tomc1985 6y ago
    So you're saying that modern capitalism has completely supplanted the original reason for starting a company in the first place? I did not write what I wrote as a parody. Shareholder primacy is the foremost blight on this modern existence and is responsible for an innumerably large portion of the negative externalities that cause so such much suffering today. I would vote with my wallet, but that will accomplish exactly jack shit. There are few who will stand with me if it means threatening their pathetically precious creature comforts which our modern capitalism so dutifully provides. Also, it is worth noting that the entire goal of capitalism is to eliminate those options, using "free-market economics" as cover for its seemingly insatiable lust for competitors to gobble up or otherwise drive out of business. Some of the very first things they teach you in b-school, about moat building and competitive advantages and all that other crap, is an outright attack on the marketplace model
  - TomSwirly 6y ago
    > However, capitalism doesn't leave consumers with no options - vote with your wallet! That really works with monopolies! /sarcasm /are-you-serious
    - wongarsu 6y ago
      Oculus doesn't have a monopoly on VR headsets. They have the most popular offering, but there are still plenty of others to choose from
marta_morena_28 6y ago
less profitable wouldn't matter if the law would dictate that every device needs to support multiple vendors with feature parity and the user/owner of a device is legally entitled to use it in whatever way they see fit. Yes, this would cause price increase. But a lot of people would gladly pay for it. The ones who don't want to, could accept a "discount" in exchange for becoming a glass citizens.
- TomSwirly 6y ago
  > Yes, this would cause price increase. Actually, it wouldn't. Facebook makes obscene profits. Rather than be uncompetitive, they'd keep the same price.
TomSwirly 6y ago
> but less profitable If we gave Facebook the choice of stopping stealing from people like this, or getting shut down, they'd do this in a second. In a sane society, Facebook would have been shut down years ago, after the 2016 election.
rmc 6y ago
If it's not profitable, then that means the market can't solve it, ergo we need regulation

by vaxman 6y ago

good idea...but less profitable, though Facebook will continue to track these "banned" users as they roam around the network and trade on their information anyway.

tomc1985 6y ago

So sick of "but that's less profitable"... these companies should exist to serve their customers, not shareholders

wraithy 6y ago
I'm not sure if you're serious about this, but it seems very short sighted. If this were the case, I don't think the word "company" would still apply. However, capitalism doesn't leave consumers with no options - vote with your wallet!
- tomc1985 6y ago
  So you're saying that modern capitalism has completely supplanted the original reason for starting a company in the first place? I did not write what I wrote as a parody. Shareholder primacy is the foremost blight on this modern existence and is responsible for an innumerably large portion of the negative externalities that cause so such much suffering today. I would vote with my wallet, but that will accomplish exactly jack shit. There are few who will stand with me if it means threatening their pathetically precious creature comforts which our modern capitalism so dutifully provides. Also, it is worth noting that the entire goal of capitalism is to eliminate those options, using "free-market economics" as cover for its seemingly insatiable lust for competitors to gobble up or otherwise drive out of business. Some of the very first things they teach you in b-school, about moat building and competitive advantages and all that other crap, is an outright attack on the marketplace model
- TomSwirly 6y ago
  > However, capitalism doesn't leave consumers with no options - vote with your wallet! That really works with monopolies! /sarcasm /are-you-serious
  - wongarsu 6y ago
    Oculus doesn't have a monopoly on VR headsets. They have the most popular offering, but there are still plenty of others to choose from

marta_morena_28 6y ago

less profitable wouldn't matter if the law would dictate that every device needs to support multiple vendors with feature parity and the user/owner of a device is legally entitled to use it in whatever way they see fit. Yes, this would cause price increase. But a lot of people would gladly pay for it. The ones who don't want to, could accept a "discount" in exchange for becoming a glass citizens.

TomSwirly 6y ago
> Yes, this would cause price increase. Actually, it wouldn't. Facebook makes obscene profits. Rather than be uncompetitive, they'd keep the same price.

TomSwirly 6y ago

> but less profitable If we gave Facebook the choice of stopping stealing from people like this, or getting shut down, they'd do this in a second. In a sane society, Facebook would have been shut down years ago, after the 2016 election.

rmc 6y ago

If it's not profitable, then that means the market can't solve it, ergo we need regulation