What I meant was, doesn't enshittification refer to a specific process of being good until you have market capture, then being shit to abuse that market capture for profit. I don't think enshttification applies where net neutrality does on the grounds that the telecom companies affected by it have never done the first step of being good to consumers, they have always been monopolies by virtue of being financial bullies.
The concern is what other pieces of information are they collecting, and when and who do they share that information with. Does it also collect data on what places you visit, or what kind of potentially controversial information you look up. People are concerned about things like visits to a hospital making its way to their employer and insurance against their will, or a trans person being outed by the ads they are served in front of their family, or maybe that the police will knock down their door because their GPS falsely placed them at the scene of a crime. Or what if they live in an actual fascist regime, and that government comes knocking because they searched for something verboten. Even aside from all that, all this data is inherently your's, and yet all these companies collecting it are just taking it from you without your explicit knowledge or consent and without you seeing even a dime or what a quick search tells me is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Reading this post makes me so happy that I instantly gravitated towards Linux Mint for my Framework. I've been using that distro on it for a while now and I almost forget that it's not Windows at times with how much it just works (actually it feels more stable than the Windows install I have on one of my other machines).
I looked into mutual combat a while back, it's not actually a legal thing. Rather it's a consequence of it being really hard to prosecute people for fighting when both parties willingly participated.
I'm more inclined to blame the manufacturer for the price increase (in this case Coke) as opposed to the retailer. Especially in this case, I kinda doubt a company as large as Coke would allow retailers to stray from the price they want by more that a few cents.
The answer seems fairly obvious to me if they really want to improve search results: blanket ban any domain owned by any company known to engage in blatant SEO spam, let them appeal after 6 months. The fact that isn't done means Google sees profit in allowing SEO spam to exist as long as it doesn't push too many people away.
Please, anyone who reads this, stop posting links to the mobile version of Wikipedia. It doesn’t switch automatically on PC, and I see it happen all the time. Just take the half a second to remove the “.m” from the beginning of the link, save everyone else from the pain of having to be surprised by it and taking the time to do it themselves.
As far as section 230 goes, that is by far the least problematic, and take note how the vast majority of efforts to remove it come from conservatives who appear to me to be annoyed that their views are being called out as harmful or hateful.
Also you're allowed to plead the fifth on the origin of the income IIRC, though honestly that's just as likely to get you looked at by the FBI/local constabulary.
Who are you proposing do this exactly? Certainly not the city, that's government intervention. Maybe an enterprising developer, one that would see the shape of the market and realize that prices go up far faster than square footage does? You can see the same issue happening with single family housing, no developer wants to build small but affordable homes because large and expensive ones cost only two or three times as much to build yet sell for probably ten times that much, and there is always a market for them because there are always corporations and hedge funds willing to pay that much and just sit on it as an investment. With apartments the issue is actually worse because you first need to buy the property and evict all the tenants, then you need to get your plans certified by the bureaucracy (and there are several), then you need to demolish the building, and only then can you start building a new one with all those cheap apartments that definitely aren't worth building just because the people buying or renting them can't afford to make up the difference even with the increased number of them.
Good to know. Sad to say I don't have much choice there unlike how I can just avoid shopping through Amazon, since it's not up to me who hosts websites.
The AWS side of their business isn't the side everyone complains about with unethical behavior, it's possible to be mad at one side of a company and to boycott it without doing the same to the other side of the company. It really helps that AWS has actual competitors in a way that Amazon shopping doesn't.
The impression I got of McCarthy's ousting was that some democrats would have voted to keep him as speaker had he had the balls to ask them. But he didn't, so the democrats did what they were expected to do and voted to oust the guy from the other party.
And then they make an FAQ based on feedback from that thread, and instead of posting it anywhere actually public they put it in their Discord and direct everyone there instead.
What I meant was, doesn't enshittification refer to a specific process of being good until you have market capture, then being shit to abuse that market capture for profit. I don't think enshttification applies where net neutrality does on the grounds that the telecom companies affected by it have never done the first step of being good to consumers, they have always been monopolies by virtue of being financial bullies.