5 ms·

This article makes me sad, because I used to support Greenwald. It's surprising he doesn't know the definition of monopoly (i.e. Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitt

by ipsum2 6y ago

This article makes me sad, because I used to support Greenwald. It's surprising he doesn't know the definition of monopoly (i.e. Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter do not compose a monopoly).

kats 6y ago
In the US there are two mobile OS options (Android and iOS) with a combined 99.8% market share. And large companies like Microsoft (Windows Mobile), Amazon (Fire OS), and Samsung (Tizen) haven't been able to grow their market share, so the barrier to entry seems pretty high.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  even if that's true (it is and it isn't, but the pedantry isn't important), what you're saying is effectively is that a duopoly over mobile devices is the same as a monopoly over the internet. that's patently untrue. it's untrue in the simplistic sense that you can access the internet with non-mobile technology, and its even untrue in the slightly less simplistic sense that an organization can provides its online presence as a website (gasp!) so as to avoid the need to have an app available on corporately-controlled stores.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Udik 6y ago
  > two mobile OS options (Android and iOS) with a combined 99.8% market share Not to mention the fact that if you're kicked out of only one of the two you're basically finished if you live on network effect. If Google decided to kick Whatsapp out of the Android store, even those who have iPhones would have no reason to use it any more.
rodgerd 6y ago
I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection, which is a straight-up lie. The fact his work has such an uncritical following on HN doesn't say much could about HN's pretensions to offer high quality discussion.
- iaw 6y ago
  It may have to do with Greenwald's staunch defense of Julian Assange and the HN community having vocal support for him.
  - MrMan 6y ago
    I used to just be creeped out by the greed on HN but now I feel like it is a sinister place
    - rodgerd 6y ago
      The fact that there's relentless pro-parler, pro-insurrectionist takes hitting the front page, but Amazon's detailed rebuttal to Parler's legal claims or technically quite interesting citizen investiations of the attack on the US Capitol tells you a lot about HN's worldview.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- krspykrm 6y ago
  > I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection, which is a straight-up lie. Actually, what is written is, and I quote, "a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler." But I'm sure that was an innocent mistake on your part, not a straight-up lie like you accuse Greenwald of.
  - ihumanable 6y ago
    While this differs in form, it doesn't seem to differ in substance. "a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler." So Greenwald reports that there were 13 people, a number small enough to stretch credulity, and they all happen to be inactive. The thrust of this statement, that it was a handful of inactive accounts is functionally the same as saying that there weren't any Parler users involved in the insurrection. 13 inactive accounts vs no accounts has little meaningful difference in meaning.

by ipsum2 6y ago

This article makes me sad, because I used to support Greenwald. It's surprising he doesn't know the definition of monopoly (i.e. Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter do not compose a monopoly).

kats 6y ago

In the US there are two mobile OS options (Android and iOS) with a combined 99.8% market share. And large companies like Microsoft (Windows Mobile), Amazon (Fire OS), and Samsung (Tizen) haven't been able to grow their market share, so the barrier to entry seems pretty high.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
even if that's true (it is and it isn't, but the pedantry isn't important), what you're saying is effectively is that a duopoly over mobile devices is the same as a monopoly over the internet. that's patently untrue. it's untrue in the simplistic sense that you can access the internet with non-mobile technology, and its even untrue in the slightly less simplistic sense that an organization can provides its online presence as a website (gasp!) so as to avoid the need to have an app available on corporately-controlled stores.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Udik 6y ago
> two mobile OS options (Android and iOS) with a combined 99.8% market share Not to mention the fact that if you're kicked out of only one of the two you're basically finished if you live on network effect. If Google decided to kick Whatsapp out of the Android store, even those who have iPhones would have no reason to use it any more.

rodgerd 6y ago

I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection, which is a straight-up lie. The fact his work has such an uncritical following on HN doesn't say much could about HN's pretensions to offer high quality discussion.

iaw 6y ago
It may have to do with Greenwald's staunch defense of Julian Assange and the HN community having vocal support for him.
- MrMan 6y ago
  I used to just be creeped out by the greed on HN but now I feel like it is a sinister place
  - rodgerd 6y ago
    The fact that there's relentless pro-parler, pro-insurrectionist takes hitting the front page, but Amazon's detailed rebuttal to Parler's legal claims or technically quite interesting citizen investiations of the attack on the US Capitol tells you a lot about HN's worldview.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
krspykrm 6y ago
> I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection, which is a straight-up lie. Actually, what is written is, and I quote, "a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler." But I'm sure that was an innocent mistake on your part, not a straight-up lie like you accuse Greenwald of.
- ihumanable 6y ago
  While this differs in form, it doesn't seem to differ in substance. "a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler." So Greenwald reports that there were 13 people, a number small enough to stretch credulity, and they all happen to be inactive. The thrust of this statement, that it was a handful of inactive accounts is functionally the same as saying that there weren't any Parler users involved in the insurrection. 13 inactive accounts vs no accounts has little meaningful difference in meaning.