stuckinarut

8 ms·

31.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
Because Sanders was way too extreme for the DNC. It's entirely the opposite the point the poster made.
32.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
> So those are probably the most extreme on the politician spectrum not to go down a rabbit hole, but only republicans consistently elect anyone "extreme". The democrats try so hard to cater to moderates republicans that they h
33.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
Because someday I (being extremely smart and awesome person who's way better than the average worker) will be that rich capitalist standing on the backs of the workers. So I need to protect them now, obviously. Plus I can negotiate bet
34.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
Politicians who would actually do anything to help young working class people seem rare, and lose in primaries.
35.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
I really can't wait until we're finally old enough that we don't need these asinine "how to understand millenials" style articles and reports.
36.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
and was allowed to grow into a behemoth capable of perverting democracy and engaging in essentially any behaviour it desires, from a business standpoint.
37.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
> Wealth inequality isn't and has never been a problem except in the minds of utopian ideologues, collectivists or people with a basic jealousy problem "Let them eat cake"
38.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
and yet the users of RSS continue to lament the loss of Google reader.
39.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
An API not suitable for commercial use. So now you're relying on a third party who is suddenly trying to cope with some percentage of the insane traffic of google maps. If they can they make a lot of money. if not you lose money by swi
40.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
right. I'm gonna stretch my metaphor a lot. Imagine street signs use polarized glasses (or something, I'm not an optics). I can see only those signs whose glasses I where. I choose to wear google glasses. Everyone does, the compet
41.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
Except google dominates search and search is the only way. This is like if one company owned the street signs, and just took them down arbitrarily.
42.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
They pay to integrate with third party services via a bidding process. > adds significant risk that the third-party changes their API, changes their feature-set in an incompatible way, goes out of business All very unlikely to happen whe
43.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
You deserved it because you served an ad that google didn't like the style of. Also their adblocker in chrome is fine too because that's not a conflict of interest. - typical HN response.
44.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
> or forced to use inferior products? Potentially, yes. Google abuses their search monopoly and ads duopoly to kill off competition in other areas. They use their browser control to control internet standards. They do things like effecti
45.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
> Split off Maps/Android/Drive/etc into separate companies so that Google can't use their search monopoly to dominate those fields? That's what I want.
46.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
America only moves to protect the money.
47.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
> Why would that be a good thing? Or rather, a better thing than the current situation? Why would that even be desirable? Because wealth inequality is massively harmful for society. It's the sort of thing that leads to revolution. &
48.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
Is it because their products are that good, or because they have one monopoly that also functions as a money hose that they can aim as needed to decimate competition in other areas.
49.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
Worth noting they have been fined int he EU for this behaviour. They destroyed some guys business with their self promotion. Google has too much power. They should be broken up for hte good of society.
50.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
In the US that's true. It's a really awful system.
51.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
Are those rhetorical questions cause it seems liek the answer is pretty obvious in this context.
52.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
Gee, that sounds familiar. I guess it's totally different because google only uses their duopoly position in ads to finance everything else.
53.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
I don't think it can be considered an open question if we're all just waiting for the inevitable disaster. The problem is we're just being slowly boiled so nothing has been done to stop the complete perversion of democracy an
54.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
They also had Dave Cutler and loads of other high profile people over the years. Dozens have companies have benefited from the diaspora of DEC, and now Sun.
55.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
Just what is your definition of substantive?
56.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
Trump effect.
57.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
That's actually a liability thing though, I think (COPPA?)
58.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
> Person A says "fuck off and die". That's not a death threat. That's mean and callous and rude, but it's not a threat.
59.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
A better example would be TERFs, and they are often worth banning because they act like terrible people.
60.
by stuckinarut 8y ago
> Is someone who is a professed neo-nazi using your platform, but not otherwise engaging in abuse, worth banning? You can't be a professed neo-nazi without engaging in abuse. Nazism is explicitly a genocidal ideology and calling for

More ›