391–400 of 748 posts
It seems like an antitrust suit would have much better chance of success than this. Is this just meaningless political posturing or is there actually chance of success?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure it does. It undercuts their entire argument by making it look much more like a political stunt than any kind of serious action.
ISPs don't abuse their power like Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. do.
My other option was to not have internet.
I already have a government-enforced cable monopoly operated by a private company, and it's terrible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think I've seen anyone get banned from any major platform for their political beliefs. It has always been for hate speech, inciting real-world violence, or spreading blatantly false misinformation that lead to incitements of violence (such as the unfounded claims that the election was stolen). Funny how none of the Republicans pushing this censorship narrative batted an eye last summer when Facebook was takin…
I got banned from Facebook for swearing basically. Someone took it as 'cyberbullying' or whatever nonsense. I tried to appeal explaining my intentions, but they basically told me that my intentions don't matter. By the way, spreading misinformation like the infamous lab leak theory? Facebook fact checkers are a joke, they're fact checking stupid memes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have multiple choices for water, dig a well, buy it from the local grocery store. Same for sewage because self composting toilets exist. Also electricity isn't a utility just use a stationary bike as a generator or buy solar panels... Just because you have multiple choices doesn't mean something is/isn't a utility. Its pretty arbitrary. They also aren't talking about Google products (most of which are completely…
That is a terrible argument. "Go sh*t in a chemical toiled" is not a reasonable alternative, the cost alone is ludicrous. Just have the decency and maturity to admit when you are wrong instead of arguing that you should "go dig a well" in the middle of the city. This is why we can't have reasonable conversations anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People talking like drilling a well in your backward is on par with typing in a different URL. So how about this, the upfront cost and effort of typing in a different URL is at least a few orders of magnitude easier than drilling a well.
> So how about this, the upfront cost and effort of typing in a different URL is at least a few orders of magnitude easier than drilling a well. That's missing the point. Regardless of whether you personally type google.com or duckduckgo.com, most people use google and so they get directed to other Google products and don't see competing products, and that hurts competition in those spaces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when people have very accessible choices of email providers and what they tie to it. I think this point might have been true 15 or 20 years ago, but I suspect that it no longer is on either front: * E-mail is increasingly non-federated and subject to Google's dictates w/r/t delivery guarantees, origin identification, &c. These aren't bad things; e-mail was a mess before Google started taking it seriously! But it do…
Regarding your first point, is that from experience? Have you known of a case where a large institution sends a legitimate email to a small provider, the small provider rejects it, and the large institution does nothing about it? If you're paying for your email provider, I would think opening up a ticket and asking to let their email through would not be much of an issue, if this ever happens.
It's usually the other way around, in my experience: I'm sending something from a relatively small provider (or a institutional mailserver), and it's rejected (sometimes silently) by a larger receiver. The reasons tend to be opaque, and support is nonexistent (presumably because the overwhelmingly amount incoming mail is illegitimate).
It's a hard problem, and the reality is that Google has made the average user's email experience radically better. But the drawback of that is that they rule the ecosystem by fiat, and that there are relatively few entities that can play keep-up with Google's (unpublished?) standards for reliable delivery. Getting booted out of Gmail increasingly means being left out in the cold, especially as institutions (like the company I work for!) use GSuite for mail.
Do states have the power to file antitrust actions against companies, or is that only a federal power? It seems like an antitrust suit would have much better chance of success than this. Is this just meaningless political posturing or is there actually chance of success?
But I have multiple choices for email, search, video hosting and browsers. I don’t have any choice for water, electricity, sewer, on any other public utility. I am sure there are a bunch of people on here that don’t use any Google products and are using DuckDuckGo, Firefox, ProtonMail, Vimeo. There are many choices.
Try finding a smartphone under 250$, try advertising any small business on the internet, try avoiding meets meeting when you apply for a job
Jio.
> try advertising any small business on the internet
Facebook is the dominate player here.
> try avoiding meets meeting when you apply for a job
Zoom? Bluejeans?