3 ms·

So, so many glaring problems here: 1. Consumers can't just 'not use something' because of network effects, and you know that. Don't play stupid with me. 2. Th

So, so many glaring problems here: 1. Consumers can't just 'not use something' because of network effects, and you know that. Don't play stupid with me. 2. The service is scummy because they lie. That's the scummy part. Sit back and read what I wrote. I'm not saying services CAN'T commit crimes against humanity. They can! I'm saying they must DO IT HONESTLY. If this is about choice, and you want users to choose what they want, then you have to be on my side. It's not optional. IF what you're saying is true, and consumers have the choice "not sign up service that scummy", THEN they must know if the service is scummy. Necessarily! You are literally agreeing with me!

tonyhart7 11mo ago
You are making it like they are doing human crime level hitler or some shit No, the competing solution/alternative its not better if there are better ways to do this, it would be born already
- int_19h 11mo ago
  > if there are better ways to do this, it would be born already That's not how it works in capitalism. If there are more profitable ways to do this, then it would have been adopted. But better is subjective - better for whom? For the users? The businesses don't give a fuck about the users, only about their money.
- mrguyorama 11mo ago
  Which is why shrinkflation always fails right? In a free market, consumers will pick the better option right? The one where they don't pay more for less? Right?
- array_key_first 11mo ago
  > You are making it like they are doing human crime level hitler or some shit I mean, yeah, Facebook directly caused a genocide because of their pursuit of ads. Do with that what you will. But either way, it's like you're pulling every fallacy you can think of out of your ass! Even if it's not a big deal, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. That's stupid. And the idea that 'oh well we don't need to think of solutions, because the magical solution fairy would've already done it' is also stupid. How do you think stuff gets done? Who's doing it? Us! The conversation we're having is that! It's the "born already" you're talking about!

tonyhart7 11mo ago

You are making it like they are doing human crime level hitler or some shit No, the competing solution/alternative its not better if there are better ways to do this, it would be born already

int_19h 11mo ago
> if there are better ways to do this, it would be born already That's not how it works in capitalism. If there are more profitable ways to do this, then it would have been adopted. But better is subjective - better for whom? For the users? The businesses don't give a fuck about the users, only about their money.
mrguyorama 11mo ago
Which is why shrinkflation always fails right? In a free market, consumers will pick the better option right? The one where they don't pay more for less? Right?
array_key_first 11mo ago
> You are making it like they are doing human crime level hitler or some shit I mean, yeah, Facebook directly caused a genocide because of their pursuit of ads. Do with that what you will. But either way, it's like you're pulling every fallacy you can think of out of your ass! Even if it's not a big deal, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. That's stupid. And the idea that 'oh well we don't need to think of solutions, because the magical solution fairy would've already done it' is also stupid. How do you think stuff gets done? Who's doing it? Us! The conversation we're having is that! It's the "born already" you're talking about!