3 ms·

This "existence proof" line or argument is, IMO, totally disingenuous when applied like this. If you think Google, amzn, msft or whatnot exist in a competitive

This "existence proof" line or argument is, IMO, totally disingenuous when applied like this. If you think Google, amzn, msft or whatnot exist in a competitive marketplace like restaurants and refrigerators.... it's just foolish. Adpocalypse was not something that happened to google. It was something Google did to it's vendors, content producers. Google just found a way to increase revenue. They are a monopsony in regards to content producers. So, they get to present a take-it-or-go-be-a-dentist proposition. In any case, there is no "vote." Actual voting would turn out very differently.

randomdata 4y ago
> If you think Google, amzn, msft or whatnot exist in a competitive marketplace like restaurants and refrigerators.... it's just foolish. It may not be competitive, but they are also pretty easy to walk away from. I've never been a customer of Google's, and haven't purchased anything from Amazon or Microsoft in many years. What do you really need from them? Not like what would be nice to have, but what do you really need? If you are buying from them it is because you like what they have to offer and are voting for it to continue. I have no doubt indirectly purchased things from all of those companies and I'm okay with my vote landing that way because the product offered was exactly what I wanted. If it wasn't what I wanted, why would I buy it? That would be silly. I could easily exert pressure on the vendors I do buy from to stop buying from the above if there was a problem. They don't offer anything I truly need either. That, of course, doesn't mean I'll win if I change my vote. If the problem is only in my mind, nobody else is going to care and the vote will land in their favour, not mine. Voting isn't about an individual. That is where it seems you are confused. > It was something Google did to it's vendors The changes Google had to make ultimately impacted its vendors, just as any business changing their ways no doubt impacts its vendors. My transition to non-GMO soybeans in response to consumer demand meant I was no longer buying the equivalent seed from GMO seed vendors. However, the situation all started because Google's product was no longer pleasing to the customers, which prompted the customers to stop being Google's customers until they changed their ways. > In any case, there is no "vote." Indeed, there is a vote. You can vote yes (spend your dollar) or you can vote no (do not spend your dollar). The entire public, even children, are eligible participants in the election... Unless they've been voted out, in which case they need to change their ways to be voted back in. That doesn't mean your choice will win, of course. Voting is not about the individual.
- dalbasal 4y ago
  You can choose not to purchase, to an extent. You will likely use Amazon, microsoft and google at work in most industries. In many, avoiding paying them is highly limiting. I suppose you can also avoid paying the post office Even if you manage to avoid paying them.... good luck avoiding using their sites, sites hosted by them, or collecting data for them. Good luck avoiding their payment systems, communication platforms, etc. This isn't like avoiding Mcdonalds. You need to be on John Galt's mountaintop to avoid these monopolies. Sticking to a narrative where Google's monopoly/monopsony represents free choices between free people is idiotic. I'm not going back to the voting thing again. It's beyond stupid.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > You need to be on John Galt's mountaintop to avoid these monopolies. So be it. If we were talking about a governmental election, and "your team" lost, you would also have to disappear to the mountains if you wanted to avoid having to interface with the elected government that doesn't represent your interests. More likely you'll just suck up the loss. That's what elections entail... They are not about the individual. > Sticking to a narrative where Google's monopoly/monopsony represents free choices between free people is idiotic. In reality, Google wouldn't last long if a large swath had a problem with them. The fact of the matter is that they offer a compelling product that many people want to use. You might not want to, but your minority position means that you've lost the election. Suck it up or move to the mountains, I guess, because the vote isn't about you as an individual. Monopolies of this sort can be problematic in that they can cause people to become blind to alternatives. If what Google offers is good enough, you're not compelled to look elsewhere. And when everyone has settled on the same good enough, there isn't someone else in your ear saying "You should check out X! It is even better than Google." This keeps the votes coming in for the incumbent. But if Google were to become no longer good enough, people will quickly start to look for X and vote for something else. Google already had exactly that happen when they were coupling their product with "unsavoury" content, which scared away customers who didn't want to be associated with such content. They had to change their policy to win back the votes. Voting works. That doesn't mean you will win.

randomdata 4y ago

> If you think Google, amzn, msft or whatnot exist in a competitive marketplace like restaurants and refrigerators.... it's just foolish. It may not be competitive, but they are also pretty easy to walk away from. I've never been a customer of Google's, and haven't purchased anything from Amazon or Microsoft in many years. What do you really need from them? Not like what would be nice to have, but what do you really need? If you are buying from them it is because you like what they have to offer and are voting for it to continue. I have no doubt indirectly purchased things from all of those companies and I'm okay with my vote landing that way because the product offered was exactly what I wanted. If it wasn't what I wanted, why would I buy it? That would be silly. I could easily exert pressure on the vendors I do buy from to stop buying from the above if there was a problem. They don't offer anything I truly need either. That, of course, doesn't mean I'll win if I change my vote. If the problem is only in my mind, nobody else is going to care and the vote will land in their favour, not mine. Voting isn't about an individual. That is where it seems you are confused. > It was something Google did to it's vendors The changes Google had to make ultimately impacted its vendors, just as any business changing their ways no doubt impacts its vendors. My transition to non-GMO soybeans in response to consumer demand meant I was no longer buying the equivalent seed from GMO seed vendors. However, the situation all started because Google's product was no longer pleasing to the customers, which prompted the customers to stop being Google's customers until they changed their ways. > In any case, there is no "vote." Indeed, there is a vote. You can vote yes (spend your dollar) or you can vote no (do not spend your dollar). The entire public, even children, are eligible participants in the election... Unless they've been voted out, in which case they need to change their ways to be voted back in. That doesn't mean your choice will win, of course. Voting is not about the individual.

dalbasal 4y ago
You can choose not to purchase, to an extent. You will likely use Amazon, microsoft and google at work in most industries. In many, avoiding paying them is highly limiting. I suppose you can also avoid paying the post office Even if you manage to avoid paying them.... good luck avoiding using their sites, sites hosted by them, or collecting data for them. Good luck avoiding their payment systems, communication platforms, etc. This isn't like avoiding Mcdonalds. You need to be on John Galt's mountaintop to avoid these monopolies. Sticking to a narrative where Google's monopoly/monopsony represents free choices between free people is idiotic. I'm not going back to the voting thing again. It's beyond stupid.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > You need to be on John Galt's mountaintop to avoid these monopolies. So be it. If we were talking about a governmental election, and "your team" lost, you would also have to disappear to the mountains if you wanted to avoid having to interface with the elected government that doesn't represent your interests. More likely you'll just suck up the loss. That's what elections entail... They are not about the individual. > Sticking to a narrative where Google's monopoly/monopsony represents free choices between free people is idiotic. In reality, Google wouldn't last long if a large swath had a problem with them. The fact of the matter is that they offer a compelling product that many people want to use. You might not want to, but your minority position means that you've lost the election. Suck it up or move to the mountains, I guess, because the vote isn't about you as an individual. Monopolies of this sort can be problematic in that they can cause people to become blind to alternatives. If what Google offers is good enough, you're not compelled to look elsewhere. And when everyone has settled on the same good enough, there isn't someone else in your ear saying "You should check out X! It is even better than Google." This keeps the votes coming in for the incumbent. But if Google were to become no longer good enough, people will quickly start to look for X and vote for something else. Google already had exactly that happen when they were coupling their product with "unsavoury" content, which scared away customers who didn't want to be associated with such content. They had to change their policy to win back the votes. Voting works. That doesn't mean you will win.