5 ms·

Another way is to make it problematic for a commercial entity to provide high value services for free. Basically an anti-dumping law, but for digital goods.

scarface_74 3y ago
Yes, and raise prices for everyone?
- pc86 3y ago
  Maybe paying $10/mo for email or $199 once for a browser is a good thing. Maybe if people didn't feel like browsers and email and search were human rights that should be given to them freely, moral hazards be damned, the internet wouldn't be the clusterfuck that it is now?
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    There are millions of people in the world who buy unsubsidized Android phones for less than $60 a year in developing countries. Even in the US, the median cost of an Android phone is less than $300 and then you expect them to pay $200 for a browser? Besides, it’s never just a one time purchase. Is that one time purchase going to get you security updates and if so, for how long?
- pixl97 3y ago
  You appear to be confusing the cost of something verses the price of something. I can eat junk food cheaply every day, I pay the price later.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    So the people who can’t afford to pay for their browser, email, etc… Let them eat cake?
    - pixl97 3y ago
      It's kind of funny to use that exact statement, but after you put profit seeking corporations in charge of our of our information you'll find they commonly find democracy 'not profitable enough' and will go about manipulating/controlling you via your own information to further increase their profits and control over you. I guess your option is becoming the cake to get ate. Meanwhile over in "lets not cede all control to corporations" land, did we forget the the internet was actually funded by the government in the first place? Have we already tossed away ideas like the rural electrification project?
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        No matter how the internet was originally funded, most of the current infrastructure that gives us the speed and bandwidth we have today and the hardware was done by private companies. Who is going to pay for the browser? Do you really want the government controlling how you access information?
        pixl97 3y ago
        >Do you really want the government controlling how you access information? You've already given that power to corporations, and corporations have far fewer regulations on actually performing said control (as in they are able to control you far more). You are so deep into Reganomics "government is bad, corporations are good" that you don't realize these large (near) monopoly status corporations are effectively their own governments in amount of power and control they have.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        It’s not reagonomics it’s just the opposite. Whatever party you align yourself with, just think of the power the other party would use to stifle speech that they don’t agree with. I have a lot more power not to use Chrome or Android than not to be under the rule of a hostile government. Whether it’s the religious right who are in control of one party or Tipper Gore going after rap music in the other party, do you really want the government controlling the web? Reagonomics was about thinking the government is incompetent. I think the government is hostile.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  There might be ways around the price issue. But if it really came down to that, I'd argue "there's no free lunch" should apply. We already pay a price to have regulatory watchdogs intervene when companies cheat the market and or distort the rules and impact society as a whole, so it wouldn't be unprecedented either.
xkcd1963 3y ago
Google Chrome is easily replaceable and is thus not a high value service
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  The largely dominant browser is never "easily replaceable". We could write PHD thesis about why, but we can take a meta look at it: there's reasons they became dominant in the first place, and those reasons need to disappear before it's easily replaceable (of course additional reasons will pile up the longer the browser stays dominant)

scarface_74 3y ago

Yes, and raise prices for everyone?

pc86 3y ago
Maybe paying $10/mo for email or $199 once for a browser is a good thing. Maybe if people didn't feel like browsers and email and search were human rights that should be given to them freely, moral hazards be damned, the internet wouldn't be the clusterfuck that it is now?
- scarface_74 3y ago
  There are millions of people in the world who buy unsubsidized Android phones for less than $60 a year in developing countries. Even in the US, the median cost of an Android phone is less than $300 and then you expect them to pay $200 for a browser? Besides, it’s never just a one time purchase. Is that one time purchase going to get you security updates and if so, for how long?
pixl97 3y ago
You appear to be confusing the cost of something verses the price of something. I can eat junk food cheaply every day, I pay the price later.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  So the people who can’t afford to pay for their browser, email, etc… Let them eat cake?
  - pixl97 3y ago
    It's kind of funny to use that exact statement, but after you put profit seeking corporations in charge of our of our information you'll find they commonly find democracy 'not profitable enough' and will go about manipulating/controlling you via your own information to further increase their profits and control over you. I guess your option is becoming the cake to get ate. Meanwhile over in "lets not cede all control to corporations" land, did we forget the the internet was actually funded by the government in the first place? Have we already tossed away ideas like the rural electrification project?
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      No matter how the internet was originally funded, most of the current infrastructure that gives us the speed and bandwidth we have today and the hardware was done by private companies. Who is going to pay for the browser? Do you really want the government controlling how you access information?
      - pixl97 3y ago
        >Do you really want the government controlling how you access information? You've already given that power to corporations, and corporations have far fewer regulations on actually performing said control (as in they are able to control you far more). You are so deep into Reganomics "government is bad, corporations are good" that you don't realize these large (near) monopoly status corporations are effectively their own governments in amount of power and control they have.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        It’s not reagonomics it’s just the opposite. Whatever party you align yourself with, just think of the power the other party would use to stifle speech that they don’t agree with. I have a lot more power not to use Chrome or Android than not to be under the rule of a hostile government. Whether it’s the religious right who are in control of one party or Tipper Gore going after rap music in the other party, do you really want the government controlling the web? Reagonomics was about thinking the government is incompetent. I think the government is hostile.
makeitdouble 3y ago
There might be ways around the price issue. But if it really came down to that, I'd argue "there's no free lunch" should apply. We already pay a price to have regulatory watchdogs intervene when companies cheat the market and or distort the rules and impact society as a whole, so it wouldn't be unprecedented either.

xkcd1963 3y ago

Google Chrome is easily replaceable and is thus not a high value service

makeitdouble 3y ago
The largely dominant browser is never "easily replaceable". We could write PHD thesis about why, but we can take a meta look at it: there's reasons they became dominant in the first place, and those reasons need to disappear before it's easily replaceable (of course additional reasons will pile up the longer the browser stays dominant)