3 ms·

They found their own pool to go pee in, and now they’re surprised that nobody wants to swim with them. It’s not everyone else’s fault that nobody else wants to

They found their own pool to go pee in, and now they’re surprised that nobody wants to swim with them. It’s not everyone else’s fault that nobody else wants to be around these people. If you go to the pub and start picking fights you’ll be avoided and thrown out pretty quickly. This is the same: they went off and created their own app, their behaviour got worse, and now nobody else wants to deal with them. What is unreasonable here?

zaroth 6y ago
Your analogy makes no sense? The users within Parlor are very happy to be swimming in whatever it is they are swimming in over there. It’s the water department who wants to turn off the hose. Or some strained analogy like that.
- FridgeSeal 6y ago
  More like they've setup their pool in a hotel room, but the neighbours are complaining about the noise and the hotel-owner doesn't want to have to clean pool-contents out of the carpet flooring when it inevitably spills, so they get asked to leave. They leave, but make a new pool by filling up the back of the ute, this spills everywhere when they drive, ruins the suspension and is a safety hazard, nobody else is surprised when they get pulled over by the cops. We've definitely strained the limits of the analogy here hahaha, but the point is that we're not obliged to have them as customers, and as another comments put it, they're not entitled to success.
totony 6y ago
Comparing Google and Apple to the local pub is disingenuous. Google alone could buy all the pubs in the UK with its one-year revenue (or one-year profit, if my calculations are correct)
- FridgeSeal 6y ago
  That is beside the point though - it's an analogy to illustrate what I mean: we can come up with an example that doesn't have anything to do with money if you'd prefer. The main point is that we're not obliged to have them as customers, and if _everyone_ is getting to the point where they're saying "we don't want you as a customer" maybe the problem is the customer, not the "censorship".
  - totony 6y ago
    Yes but the analogy does not hold, since Google is as close to a monopoly as you can get. If your technological overlord decides to "kick you out" and thus you get ostracized from society it is hyperbole to compare it to getting kicked out of an insignificant building. >_everyone_ Businesses have incentives to reduce risks. It's not necessarily that they disagree with what they say, it's just that they made a calculated decision to not have them as consumers. It's not because everyone decides not to have you as consumers that it is a good thing for society to let them not have you (same thing happened for gays, black people, etc. yet we decided to protect those from businesses).

zaroth 6y ago

Your analogy makes no sense? The users within Parlor are very happy to be swimming in whatever it is they are swimming in over there. It’s the water department who wants to turn off the hose. Or some strained analogy like that.

FridgeSeal 6y ago
More like they've setup their pool in a hotel room, but the neighbours are complaining about the noise and the hotel-owner doesn't want to have to clean pool-contents out of the carpet flooring when it inevitably spills, so they get asked to leave. They leave, but make a new pool by filling up the back of the ute, this spills everywhere when they drive, ruins the suspension and is a safety hazard, nobody else is surprised when they get pulled over by the cops. We've definitely strained the limits of the analogy here hahaha, but the point is that we're not obliged to have them as customers, and as another comments put it, they're not entitled to success.

totony 6y ago

Comparing Google and Apple to the local pub is disingenuous. Google alone could buy all the pubs in the UK with its one-year revenue (or one-year profit, if my calculations are correct)

FridgeSeal 6y ago
That is beside the point though - it's an analogy to illustrate what I mean: we can come up with an example that doesn't have anything to do with money if you'd prefer. The main point is that we're not obliged to have them as customers, and if _everyone_ is getting to the point where they're saying "we don't want you as a customer" maybe the problem is the customer, not the "censorship".
- totony 6y ago
  Yes but the analogy does not hold, since Google is as close to a monopoly as you can get. If your technological overlord decides to "kick you out" and thus you get ostracized from society it is hyperbole to compare it to getting kicked out of an insignificant building. >_everyone_ Businesses have incentives to reduce risks. It's not necessarily that they disagree with what they say, it's just that they made a calculated decision to not have them as consumers. It's not because everyone decides not to have you as consumers that it is a good thing for society to let them not have you (same thing happened for gays, black people, etc. yet we decided to protect those from businesses).