Tinder just permabanned me or the problem with big tech

Post by sbarre » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

adolph wrote: post #414

dbingham wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A democratically elected government. Look, there is no such thing as a "natural market" that can keep the power of the actors in it in check. The internet was the closest thing to a perfect market that has ever existed and all it has produced is overpowered monopoly after overpowered monopoly. If we want a free society, we don't get that by handing power over to the markets. We get that by building the most responsiv…

In the US, "People, elected and held accountable by citizenry at large" found that banks were "too big to fail." They did not restrain "the power of the actors in [the market] in check." What makes you think it'll be different this time?

Post by SllX » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #461

SllX wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well not granting monopolies is a start, but governments grant monopolies all the time in the form of patents, copyright and trademarks. Proving a monopoly exists or are forming could be another way to do so, but so far they have recently made lackluster arguments in Courts of Law on that front. If you then prove a monopoly, can you also then prove that it’s activities are harmful to the people in the marketplace by…

> not granting monopolies is a start Monopolies are generally not granted, except in exceptional circumstances. The US government didn't grant Microsoft a monopoly in PC operating systems. > Proving a monopoly exists or are forming could be another way to do so, but so far they have recently made lackluster arguments in Courts of Law on that front. What are you referring to?

Post by lolinder » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 7:49 PM UTC

butokai wrote: post #427

lolinder wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would it mean to break up Tinder? How do you partition a company that only has one product?

Not sure what you mean by this, but Tinder's parent company controls several well known dating services (OkCupid, Meetic, Twoo and many more)

Post by grog454 » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

jquery wrote: post #307

smsm42 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you don't seem to realize here is that various app stores, etc almost never sell you any content. They sell you a temporary revokable right to access content. It's like a movie theater ticket, with an added bonus of ushers being paranoid assholes that could kick you out any moment without a reason. You don't own the movie, you can just watch it, if you're lucky. If you think that service isn't worth the price -…

Really? When I buy a steam game, the big green button says “purchase”, not “receive a temporarily revocable right to access”. It’s the digital age. My digital items are my possessions. This dichotomy in your head between the “real” and the “digital” doesn’t exist for the younger generation. There are few alternatives to these large tech companies. As I’ve gotten older I’ve wisened up and I buy DRM-free digital goods…

Post by unabridged » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #469

unabridged wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of regulation, I'd like to see the government offer a free service. A digital commons. In this case the public library version of Tinder, with strict rules of who can be banned and where everyone is treated equally.

You want the government to be that involved in pair-selection in the population??? I am disturbed. Eugenics aside: you know that a direct result of this is that border services, local police, etc will have access to a database of dick pics, don't you?