bohemund Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 Just a thought I had. Amazon is a bastion of the regressive left, yet Stefan sells his book there. Youtube is a cancer on the internet, but Stefan uses it to push his videos. I know they're not monetized, but he's still driving hundreds of thousands of users to the site. What are your thoughts on this? 1 1
Boss Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 I don't see Amazon/YouTube itself as being too problematic. The problem is the subsidies they are getting. In the free market, companies will have to supply what the people demand. Its also up to the people to convince other people why they should also demand it so its enough of an incentive for the companies to supply it. If there is a big enough demand, normally someone will eventually supply it. Right now if you want to get your message across to the most amount of people, YouTube and Amazon have a tremendous amount of traffic. It's great that Stefan is taking advantage of both.
ofd Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Quote The problem is the subsidies they are getting. Which subsidies are that? Quote In the free market, companies will have to supply what the people demand. There is already a free market online. Everybody can start a streaming platform. Youtube, facebook, google etc have to be treated as common carriers to prevent the oppression of dissenting voices.
Boss Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 1 hour ago, ofd said: Which subsidies are that? There is already a free market online. Everybody can start a streaming platform. Youtube, facebook, google etc have to be treated as common carriers to prevent the oppression of dissenting voices. The main one for Amazon is with USPS which puts U.S. stores and domestic online sellers alike at a persistent disadvantagehttp://fortune.com/2017/07/16/amazon-postal-service-subsidy/ Google received $89 million in taxpayer subsidies to build a data centerhttp://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/02/googles_billion.php The internet is relatively free. However, companies are still using subsidies to get an advantage and that makes it harder especially for smaller companies to compete and build something. Its of course possible. This is not like the more communist countries like North Korea or China which bans things like youtube, twitter and facebook all together.
ofd Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Quote The main one for Amazon is with USPS which puts U.S. stores and domestic online sellers alike at a persistent disadvantagehttp://fortune.com/2017/07/16/amazon-postal-service-subsidy/ The last paragraph mentions that other companies or vendors get the same preferential treatment. Quote Google received $89 million in taxpayer subsidies to build a data centerhttp://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/02/googles_billion.php So what? That's a drop in the ocean. Quote The internet is relatively free. The platforms are not. In essence, when you use twitter, facebook and what not they can do what they want with your data and your account. Fighting back is costly. Quote China which bans things like youtube, twitter and facebook all together. Because they want to censor information and have homegrown big companies which proved to be succesful. Alibaba is about as big as Amazon, Baidu is just as monstrous a company as google is.
Wuzzums Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 I downvoted the post. Unfortunately for OP I read Rules for Radicals too.
bohemund Posted October 17, 2017 Author Posted October 17, 2017 3 hours ago, Wuzzums said: I downvoted the post. Unfortunately for OP I read Rules for Radicals too. This is the kind of low tier post I would see on a place like /r/thedonald Are you for real? What does rules for radicals have to do with Google being a Social Marxist piece of filth? Amazon the same? I question why Molyneux doesn't support alternate methods to get his message out. You're apparently just here to make stupid comments 1 1
Boss Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 8 hours ago, ofd said: The last paragraph mentions that other companies or vendors get the same preferential treatment. So what? That's a drop in the ocean. The platforms are not. In essence, when you use twitter, facebook and what not they can do what they want with your data and your account. Fighting back is costly. Because they want to censor information and have homegrown big companies which proved to be succesful. Alibaba is about as big as Amazon, Baidu is just as monstrous a company as google is. 2 The last paragraph mentions that the UN and China get the same preferential treatment, something that is also unfair. Trump and others talk about the unfair UN and China trade deficit. Anyways not sure if you read the last paragraph fully as it did state "That puts U.S. stores and domestic online sellers alike at a persistent disadvantage." "So what? That's a drop in the ocean." is not an argument. Obviously, there are more subsidies these were just the main ones to come to mind. The subsidies to build a data center came to mind as I remember a libertarian group tried suing to stop it. Anyways, If you read the article which is 7 years old, so I wouldn't be surprised if its more, but google can be seen as receiving billions in subsidies. I dont think it takes a genius to see how Google and Amazon has an advantage from lobbying and getting subsidies. They are getting tons of taxpayers money and are lobbying which doesnt work the same for smaller businesses. They are using the power of the state which shouldn't exist
ofd Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Quote Anyways, If you read the article which is 7 years old, so I wouldn't be surprised if its more, but google can be seen as receiving billions in subsidies. Google makes most of the money selling ads. I don't see what subsidies they get. When they build a new data centre, different towns or regions compete for that, offering money to have it built there. Quote They are using the power of the state which shouldn't exist Lets make the power of the state disappear. Poof, it's gone. How would that change the current situation with the government doing nothing with regards to youtube's policies when it comes to demonetizing videos and censoring content?
bohemund Posted October 18, 2017 Author Posted October 18, 2017 15 hours ago, Wuzzums said: -1 for #4 -1 for #5 Let's try having an actual discussion. That was a weak response
Recommended Posts