371–380 of 452 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FYI, “knock offs” has the same meaning as counterfeit. Target sells “generics” under their Up+Up brands.
knockoff means imitation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knockoff https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/knockof...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You’re going to have a really hard time defining what’s “fair” for a black box algorithm to do. To which the two biggest counter-arguments are: 1. “So don’t allow black box algorithms” 2. “This is why the search engine company should be separate from the company which owns all the other products”
So when are we banning human judgements? They are the ultimate black box.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depending on your interests, that could be anything from: Fortnite, Tasker[0], NewPipe, Ublock Origin[1], Syncthing, xCloud and GeForce Now (until pretty recently[2]), RetroArch, the Dolphin emulator (as of iOS 14.4), and the most recent addition, NSFW Discord servers. > android is just handicapped because I can't run a different OS, or screw around in the OS and change things to my whims You totally can. I've been r…
I don't own any apple devices. I'd support movements to get Apple to be more open to allowing the apps you mentioned, excluding fortnite, onto their platform through alternative means. However, epic seems to be dominating the discussion and they are a bad actor acting in bad faith who peddle digital crack to children fleecing their parents. If we can disambiguate between useful apps, or apps that aren't designed to v…
> I've never had an android phone that allowed custom ROMs at launch
Valid concern, but this is less a Google problem and more a hardware problem. Google isn't doing anything to block LineageOS, it just takes time to support the new hardware. You'll see the same problem with consumer laptops and Linux. This is why we have increasing movement to try and get Open hardware/firmware. Nevertheless, the situation with LineageOS is still comparatively much better than it is on Apple hardware. At least with LineageOS, you don't need to find a jailbreak to get it working.
Part of the reason Apple dominates these conversations is because it's the most obvious, clear example of what we're talking about -- not because the situation on Android is ideal or because we wouldn't like the Android situation to be better. Check out the discussions about the Librem 5/Pinephone if you're interested in getting involved in the effort to make hardware compatibility better in general.
> epic seems to be dominating the discussion
It's not so much that everything revolves around Fortnite, it's just that Epic is currently one of the biggest forces in play surrounding antitrust. It's a bit like how Google and Oracle dominated the conversation around API Copyright -- not because Google was a saintly company, but because they were currently arguing about it in front of a judge, and that's a newsworthy event that might have large effects on the industry.
That being said, I'm also a little bit confused about why you're voicing this objection here, because this article doesn't mention Epic at all, and outside the comment thread that you started, I don't really see anywhere else in the comments where anyone has brought Epic up. Fortnite was 1 out of 10 apps that I mentioned in a comment thread that was originally talking about Apple's refusal to allow alternative browsers like Firefox. So while Epic is certainly getting a lot of coverage in general, it's not like nothing else is being talked about. I certainly didn't zero in on Epic in my comment other than to list Fortnite as one of multiple examples of apps some consumers might care about.
On the note of "unequal coverage", it's also worth mentioning that the legislative effort being covered in this article is targeting both Apple and Google and would affect both companies equally. So I'm not even sure it's accurate for you to say that Google is getting a free pass legally. The Judiciary Committee is certainly not ignoring Google right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The don’t care if you illegally cause stock to go up, and you profit from it, as other investors also profit. They clearly do, as we've seen with musk's "funding secured" tweet.
Do they? He got financial slap on his wrist, didn’t have to admit to any wrong doing, kept absolute power in the company, ignored any corrective actions of the settlement, and continues to pump stock on weekly basis, to a place that made him one of the richest people in the world. And in the free time he’s pumping other meme investments, just for fun. SEC vs Musk is perfect example of how powerless/not interested in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are some examples of behavior you would accept as being actual harm to consumers?
Under the Bork standard, to which skystarman is alluding, rising price is the only concern. "Consumer harm" doctrine. This was invented from whole cloth by Robert Bork, Richard Posner, and Aaron Director, at the University of Chicago, as part of a decades-long project and organisation to redraft US antitrust policy. It was devastatingly effective. It also has little if any basis in the legislative rationale of origin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You’re going to have a really hard time defining what’s “fair” for a black box algorithm to do. To which the two biggest counter-arguments are: 1. “So don’t allow black box algorithms” 2. “This is why the search engine company should be separate from the company which owns all the other products”
People use Google because the algorithm is a black box that is constantly updated to keep away black hat SEO crap. An open web page ranking algorithm is useless in an adversarial environment. There is no current signal that can’t be trivially gained that doesn’t effectively require mass user surveillance (to see “what’s really popular”). > 2. “This is why the search engine company should be separate from the company…
Pretty redundant if you ask me: black hat, SEO and crap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just whatever marketplace, anti-monopoly legislation focuses on markets where the players own a significant share of the full market. In the case of Amazon, it seems like they have above 52% of the e-commerce market in the US in 2019 ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/955796/global-amazon-e-c... ) so probably it's even higher now. When one player now has over half the market, you need to carefully watch w…
The standard for antitrust enforcement for decades has been when the action of a company harms consumers. How does Amazon harm consumers? I mean precisely, how? Amazon is one of the most highly rated companies in the US by its customers. Its NPS score is 69 and 70 is considered "world class". I can get almost anything online shipped to my house the SAME DAY. If Amazon sends you the wrong item they'll let you keep the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One example: Amazon doesn’t seem to care about fraudulent sellers and fake paid-for reviews on its platform.
Amazon cares substantially about stopping these things. As is the case when you are fighting against other humans, who are crafty, financially-motivated, and are willing to break the law, and may be operating from different jurisdictions where attempting to get the DA to prosecute them or filing a lawsuit against them is ineffective, it's a very difficult battle to fight. As an example I'd be surprised if Amazon coul…
Right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
knockoff means imitation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knockoff https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/knockof...
I’ve never seen it used in a context other than trying to pass an item off as something else. I would be surprised to hear someone refer to a generic version of something as a knockoff.