stuckinarut

Because Sanders was way too extreme for the DNC. It's entirely the opposite the point the poster made.

> So those are probably the most extreme on the politician spectrum

not to go down a rabbit hole, but only republicans consistently elect anyone "extreme".

The democrats try so hard to cater to moderates republicans that they have completely lost touch with their base and have let the country move further and further to the right. The DNC pretty consistently attacks any candidates left of where they want to be, which is a neo-liberal party.

Because someday I (being extremely smart and awesome person who's way better than the average worker) will be that rich capitalist standing on the backs of the workers.

So I need to protect them now, obviously. Plus I can negotiate better by myself against a faceless company worth dozens of billions. Like I said, I'm very special.

Politicians who would actually do anything to help young working class people seem rare, and lose in primaries.

I really can't wait until we're finally old enough that we don't need these asinine "how to understand millenials" style articles and reports.

and was allowed to grow into a behemoth capable of perverting democracy and engaging in essentially any behaviour it desires, from a business standpoint.

> Wealth inequality isn't and has never been a problem except in the minds of utopian ideologues, collectivists or people with a basic jealousy problem

"Let them eat cake"

and yet the users of RSS continue to lament the loss of Google reader.

An API not suitable for commercial use. So now you're relying on a third party who is suddenly trying to cope with some percentage of the insane traffic of google maps. If they can they make a lot of money.

if not you lose money by switching to them. if it's less than the new rate that you get from google, it's a hard sell to switch. You might point out that this third party should spend the money to scale, but unlike google they aren't equipped with an advertising firehose of cash that they can point at a losing business whenever they want. They have to operate a scale they can afford. Best case they have the staff to build out a service that they can scale quickly enough to take advantage. Realistically, that means using a cloud service provided by one of the oligarchs.

right.

I'm gonna stretch my metaphor a lot.

Imagine street signs use polarized glasses (or something, I'm not an optics). I can see only those signs whose glasses I where.

I choose to wear google glasses. Everyone does, the competition is pretty good but google has been around for so long that I just don't really bother with anything else.

Now google takes down some signs. Am I really going to carry 3 pairs of glasses (N pairs, M are relevant) in order to figure out what street I'm on? or am I just going to walk a block to the next street and use the service google hasn't arbitrarily decided to destroy.

Except google dominates search and search is the only way.

This is like if one company owned the street signs, and just took them down arbitrarily.

They pay to integrate with third party services via a bidding process.

> adds significant risk that the third-party changes their API, changes their feature-set in an incompatible way, goes out of business

All very unlikely to happen when dealing with a client the size of google.

> It's both cheaper and more convenient for the end-user if the search provider handles the mapping itself

added bonus, google gets to dominate mapping then jack up the cost 30x when they decide they want it to be a billion dollar business. LIke they did recently.

You deserved it because you served an ad that google didn't like the style of. Also their adblocker in chrome is fine too because that's not a conflict of interest.

- typical HN response.

> or forced to use inferior products?

Potentially, yes. Google abuses their search monopoly and ads duopoly to kill off competition in other areas.

They use their browser control to control internet standards.

They do things like effectively kill RSS via EEE style tactics.

> Split off Maps/Android/Drive/etc into separate companies so that Google can't use their search monopoly to dominate those fields?

That's what I want.

America only moves to protect the money.

> Why would that be a good thing? Or rather, a better thing than the current situation? Why would that even be desirable?

Because wealth inequality is massively harmful for society. It's the sort of thing that leads to revolution.

> If you believe e.g. that company equity should be more uniformly distributed, go talk to your congressman, have him draft a law to that effect and get congress to vote on it.

and then Google writes him a check and the whole thing goes away. Biggest lobbyist around.

Is it because their products are that good, or because they have one monopoly that also functions as a money hose that they can aim as needed to decimate competition in other areas.

Worth noting they have been fined int he EU for this behaviour. They destroyed some guys business with their self promotion.

Google has too much power. They should be broken up for hte good of society.

In the US that's true. It's a really awful system.

Are those rhetorical questions cause it seems liek the answer is pretty obvious in this context.

Gee, that sounds familiar.

I guess it's totally different because google only uses their duopoly position in ads to finance everything else.

I don't think it can be considered an open question if we're all just waiting for the inevitable disaster.

The problem is we're just being slowly boiled so nothing has been done to stop the complete perversion of democracy and slide into a corporate oligarchy.

They also had Dave Cutler and loads of other high profile people over the years.

Dozens have companies have benefited from the diaspora of DEC, and now Sun.

Just what is your definition of substantive?

Trump effect.

That's actually a liability thing though, I think (COPPA?)

> Person A says "fuck off and die".

That's not a death threat. That's mean and callous and rude, but it's not a threat.

A better example would be TERFs, and they are often worth banning because they act like terrible people.

> Is someone who is a professed neo-nazi using your platform, but not otherwise engaging in abuse, worth banning?

You can't be a professed neo-nazi without engaging in abuse. Nazism is explicitly a genocidal ideology and calling for genocide is abuse.

> When we start going down this path of trying to get rid of "undesirables", we start engaging in censorship.

Yes. Lets get started.