Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

Post by ClumsyPilot » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 10:58 PM UTC

hakunin wrote: post #240

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a blanket ban runs into this problem, what about a "ban by default"? Basically just flip the script so it doesn't require a denial based on circumstances but instead an approval based on circumstances.

This doesn’t work in practice due to typically severe time constraints. You cannot expect a business that has 6 days of life left to wait for such an approval process. These things never happen fast.

Post by pclmulqdq » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 11:01 PM UTC

turmacar wrote: post #245

hakunin wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t work in practice due to typically severe time constraints. You cannot expect a business that has 6 days of life left to wait for such an approval process. These things never happen fast.

What M&A are you familiar with that they can typically happen in a 6 day timeframe? I know this is already a stressed straw man in the first place but M&A are aren't a short simple process anyway. Adding some oversight isn't going to change that. Yes there are tradeoffs to more regulation vs total anarchy/free market. That doesn't mean they're not worth it. "Good" is not the enemy of "perfect" and all.

Post by ClumsyPilot » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 11:04 PM UTC

floren wrote: post #230

meepmorp wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, why not just do something well and make a living from it? I've seen the word enshittifcation plenty lately, and it strikes me that the focus on exits and payouts is a big part of the problem. I feel old and you goddamn kids better be off my lawn by the time I get back with the shotgun.

Well, for a long time, you would just get an MVP up and then collect as many users as possible by offering free accounts, and if you were somewhat aligned with something Facebook or Google was vaguely interested in, you'd get acquired for $100m. Getting $100m for two years of work is a lot more lucrative than working hard for a decade to build a self-sufficient company, so I can't really blame people for doing it.

Post by ClumsyPilot » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 11:10 PM UTC

idopmstuff wrote: post #207

thomasahle wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what happens to the mom and pop hardware store that's been running for 30 years when mom and pop want to retire? They just have to shut their doors? They could sell it to another mom and pop? It's only an M&A if the shop is bought by / becomes part of another business. If nobody wants to continue running the independent shop, it doesn't make much difference to consumers if a chain buys it, or if it closes down a…

If the only people who can buy businesses are individuals, you've cut the potential acquirer pool, and thus the value, by an enormous amount. > If nobody wants to continue running the independent shop, it doesn't make much difference to consumers if a chain buys it, or if it closes down and the chain just opens a new shop there. You're pointing out exactly why banning M&A would be good for big businesses. Now instead…

Post by mcpackieh » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 11:19 PM UTC

lkbm wrote: post #146

pessimizer wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's a "fake" review for values of fake that don't include dishonesty, you can easily choose not to read it. This is not that. The big example cited is a bunch of people registering their objection to a light book being written about Soviet Ukraine while there's a war on. This is a real objection that a lot of (silly, annoying) people have. The reason the book was not published is because they thought that this ob…

> you can easily choose not to read it. I cannot easily exclude it from the ratings. There's a pretty widespread understanding that star ratings are meant to aggregate the opinions of people who read the book.