I’d prefer that the people who did the beating not be allowed to be in office anymore. There’s a lot of people on that list.
I’d prefer that the people who did the beating not be allowed to be in office anymore. There’s a lot of people on that list.
When Trump dumped a bunch of money on the economy in 2020, he did contribute to a bunch of inflation, yes.
This is why individual insurance is better. You can switch to a better provider without convincing a large bureaucracy first.
Everyone is talking past each other on this issue.
Some people who don’t know anything are arguing that enslaved people literally benefited from slavery, but that’s not what started this discussion.
I just dont want a monopoly.
There is no monopoly in video streaming. Not even close.
wut. Not having meetings in private places literally is making sure the ‘place’ accepts everyone. Do you even read what you’re saying?
You’re misreading what I wrote. If government unfairly has vital meetings at Private Club which not everyone has access to, the solution is not to force Private Club to accept everyone, it’s to not have meetings at Private Club and have them at City Hall or something instead, somewhere that isn’t exclusive.
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.
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.
How?
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.
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?
The route to getting something posted on Facebook or other social media involves 1 gatekeeper who barely involves itself. The route to getting a book or news article published involves more, and they micromanage the content much much more. Just compare what percentage of people have posted something on Facebook vs have had an article published by a newspaper or magazine.
I mean, it sort of did, it’s just not quite that simple. A lot of amazing things have come about because of social media. So many artists able to reach people directly without needing gatekeepers like publishers. Movements able to be organized where previously those people would have never interacted.
Shh, people don’t wanna hear that. Lol
Tesla doesn’t want some other company to buy all its vehicles and turn around and sell them at a higher price, damaging the press around the Tesla brand and stopping its cars from getting to would-be Tesla super fans. It’s the same reason stores will sometimes say “limit 2 per customer” on certain items.
That’s one reason, anyway.
They should make batteries that swap out completely so you can load a fully charged one in in a few seconds and let your old one charge while you’re off driving somewhere else. Or you just exchange the battery permanently like with some propane tanks.