rchive @ rchive @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

203

Joined

2 yr. ago

Public services aren't efficient, but they can surely change themselves more efficiently than they can force a multi billion dollar company to change its ways.

I'm surprised you're not more worried about the government outsourcing its functions to a company you seem very suspicious of.

If the government decided to have vital public meetings only in a private venue you have to be a member of or something, the proper fix is not to force the club to accept everyone, it's to have the government stop having vital meetings in private places.

I also don't see a problem because everything of value these video streaming services offer is replaceable by one of the many other streaming services. The fact that YouTube is the biggest or most recognized does not change anything for me. The fact that there is some content that is only on YouTube doesn't, either. That's a normal thing that happens in an economy. Ford dealers only sell Ford cars, Coca Cola doesn't sell Pepsi, etc.

The efficient solution to that problem is governments using a different platform that's actually neutral. The government has full control over where they host their videos. Using that as a reason to TRY (a likely long and drawn out process) to force Google to change its policies company-wide is silly.

I'm not being disingenuous. I watch videos on a bunch of platforms. It's easy.

He can decide, and his middle managers can decide, and you can also decide by choosing to shop from somewhere else.

Because that's not how internet business works.

How does it work, then?

This is not a thing that Google invented and developed on their own.

I don't know what this is referring to or what it has to do with anything.

No, not really. Google can't do anything about my taking my Firefox browser and watching videos from somewhere else. There are countless other video streaming services.

1. How?
2. Pick a different example then. In my experience movie theaters don't let you bring food in from outside. McDonald's still won't sell a Burger King burger regardless of whether you could bring one in.

That's less restrictive than what I said. McDonald's won't let you bring tacos in at all, doesn't just make you wait at the door for 2 minutes, etc.

Edit: and to anyone quibbling with my McDonald's example saying you can in fact bring tacos in, that was just an illustration. I can find plenty of examples of one establishment not letting people bring food in from somewhere else.

Is it more anti competitive than McDonald's only selling McDonald's burgers or preventing you from bringing Taco Bell tacos in from outside?

I just use Freetube either way. I can't stand autoplaying videos or suggestions, popups, etc.

The current US Federal Trade Commission is quite agressive compared to other FTCs historically.

If we don't know the exact number, then it's too high. Lol

On the other hand, if everyone in the world had your lifestyle the world would be much more wealthy and could make a lot of positive changes.

I think the answer is yes.

Amazon is very much not a monopoly. There are thousands of online retailers. There are also a lot of delivery services, no idea if there are thousands, but there's a lot.

None of that affects people's ability to disseminate information anywhere close to the constraints put on people by traditional publishing. Again, how many people have ever posted to social media vs how many people have ever published a book?

"Pride is not the opposite of shame, but it's source. True humility is the only antidote to shame." -Uncle Iroh

It wasn't the giving money, it was the fast tracking in terms of regulations. Many people in Trump's position would not have done that and would have waited the expected 18 months instead of the 11 that it actually took. Some in the industry were concerned as it was happening. Plenty of other countries dragged their feet in the approval process more than the US did.

Trump wasn't single handedly responsible for the approvals. Far from it. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't know much of the details. But it still seems he was pushing for it where other people wouldn't have. I'm not sure Biden would have. Trump likes to play fast and loose where Biden is a bit stuffier.

Basically I think my vote matters even if it doesn't matter, so I vote for people I actually want. Lol. If there was a race where I had a strong preference between the two main party candidates and I thought my vote would have an impact, I'd ditch the third party for that race.

If your bit was sarcasm, then that makes more sense. Trump was not particularly good on Covid, but we would have had a big problem regardless of who was president at the time.

With Trump him sitting in meetings still doesn't mean he's heard of it. Lol.

Anyway, I'm just saying Heritage is the mastermind, not Trump.