ShrinkingWild

5 ms·

1.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
There's no force involved here, this is just Basecamp being upset they now have to pay Google for what they do. Basecamp made a value judgement that the value google provides through its search results is worth the price of paying for
2.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
I've never understood this, all economic transactions are voluntary, who am I (or in this case, you) to tell people they can't make that decision? People who make bad decisions shouldn't be protected from the consequences of
3.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
The idea that all the insurance companies would go bust at the same time is laughable, it's a hypothetical with no basis. Even taking your hypothetical though, my opinion remains unchanged, people reaping the rewards, or in this case p
4.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
Its abhorrent to me that you think the "social good" is a good enough reason to violate the rights of the individual. Access to food is a social good, but we don't say we should have the state provide universal access to food
5.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
I don't reconcile that distinction, it's based on the false premise that you do have the right to the provision of electricity. I don't agree with that on the same premise as healthcare, even if 'society' has agreed
6.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
This is likely the core of our disagreement; Healthcare is not essential, it's a luxury that has been afforded to us by those who were willing to study and learn how to do it in an advanced manner. No one has a 'right' to a h
7.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
Only if you're enforcing the "livable" wage. Those people who would be working for under your "livable" wage would still be out of that money though.
8.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
No one would, uber would be forced to either pay higher or go out of business due to a lack of supply in drivers. As it stands though, supply of drivers way outweighs demand for drivers, so they get paid less. A "liveable wage", w
9.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
I don't agree that that is unacceptable, regardless of what "we as a society" have deemed. The consumers being held to account for their own business dealing is the reality of the situation, they're giving their money ov
10.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
Parent mentioned it would have to be the case, it doesn't have to. If it makes you feel any better replace it with "shouldn't" in your head.
11.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
Those people lose their money. I can't think of a good reason why they'd expect to get that money back, they were paying for a service that was being provided up until the company could no longer provide it. Losing your money to a
12.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
>It would be great until there was a hard year and the insurance companies would have the be bailed out by the taxpayers. Surely that wouldn't be the case? They wouldn't have to be bailed out; If a company hadn't planned a
13.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
Surely they "dance to the tune" because in reality their work just isn't worth enough to allow them that freedom of choice? That's hardly Ubers fault and I don't see why Uber should have to suffer to make up for tha
14.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
Yes, that's exactly what I mean, they're part of the market whether you like it or not and so they created a market desire for DRM in browsers. DRM isn't inherently evil, it's an attempt to protect the property rights of
15.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
In the case of DRM, chrome is fulfilling a market desire that firefox had to follow suit with once the companies that adopted it realised their desire could be fulfilled. This is an issue with the companies implementing the DRM, not chrome
16.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
Can you name an actual example of this happening or are you stuck with hypotheticals? Because my version can go very different to yours and with no concrete examples that your hypothetical is based off there's no moving forward except
17.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
Nazis also drank water and some probably even had pets. A lot of things started because people have said bad things, a lot of things also haven't started even though some people said bad things. The problem is something has to start
18.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
I mis-worded my comment there so this misunderstanding is my fault. I meant the definition you provided is used to leverage government regulation and in fact your Quora link is exactly what I meant. It's used as a legal definition be
19.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
Back in its day, yeah. Then Microsoft got sued for providing it free with their OS instead of people having to wait for a long download or buying a browser . Internet explorer didn't keep up, so now it's not as good as it could b
20.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
Yes, Google promoted themselves on their own services, what's the problem with that? The influence gained from their prowess in web search was legitimate, I don't see a problem with them leveraging that. If chrome was garbage it w
21.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
I think the main difference here is that the nazi's were actually doing bad things as well as saying bad things. In this case, bar the rare exception by individuals, these are people who are vocal that they think they're superio
22.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
What resources have chrome monopolised to prevent other browsers from being provided? If chrome is a monopoly, why can I just go download firefox or opera or internet explorer? Chrome isn't a monopoly, it's just the most popular&
23.
by ShrinkingWild 7y ago
Disagreement with a particular provider or producers actions within the free market is not equal to disagreement with the free market in general. AFAIK Gab isn't calling for regulation of the market to prevent this, so there's no