4 ms·
> Most things that people assume are malicious often are usually prioritization issue Monopolists shouldn't have the benefit of doubt. If it acts in a way that
by Qem 2y ago
> Most things that people assume are malicious often are usually prioritization issue
Monopolists shouldn't have the benefit of doubt. If it acts in a way that seems like dominant market position abuse, the default position should be assume that's the case, and act accordingly.
- shadowgovt 2y agoIt can also be both. At Google's scale, the easiest way to harm Firefox's market share is to simply not test changes on Firefox. Let Mozilla keep their browser implementation-compliant with Google's interpretation of the spec, not the other way around.
- prox 2y agoAnd the experience is on Safari as well. Fair enough, Apple videos playing nice with Android cast devices is also trouble.
- bigstrat2003 2y agoEveryone should have the benefit of the doubt. It's simply the right way to act. One doesn't act right towards people because they deserve it in some cosmic sense, but because it's the moral thing to do.
- Qem 2y ago> One doesn't act right towards people because they deserve it in some cosmic sense, but because it's the moral thing to do. Corporations are not people.
- acaloiar 2y agoThe idea isn't about "benefit of the doubt", it's about having an accurate world view. If you attribute to malice every action of monoploies, you have an inaccurate world view. It's a world view you're of course entitled to, but that doesn't make it a good one to have.