I disagree that we need to find mismanagement first.

Never mind that Google is 100% opaque from outside and is not subject to inspections by its users.

Even if Google had an open door policy inviting and empowering any and all citizen auditors, I would still disagree that Google gets the benefit of doubt by default, and only after something blows up can we begin asserting our interests.

I think we can assert our interests any time, for any reason, and for no reason at all, with arbitrary aggressiveness, limited only by our own practical considerations.

Instead of waiting for things to go wrong, we can protect our interests before there is even a chance of things going wrong.

Can.

Will we? Each person has to consider their situation pragmatically, but if they considered everything and decided to assert themselves, we would be idiots to insist Google gets the first dibs, they have the initiative, and so how dare we want to limit Google in any way without first PROVING harm. Horse. Shit.

I take the same view toward any monopolies in general. We should not bother proving harm. We should break all monopolies as a matter of principle, even if they are “harmless.”

And Google shound be given as close to zero information as possible. As a matter of principle.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Then you want real and enforced competition.

Bad corporate behaviour is a political problem.

Here we are talking about technological solutions for political problems. Why?

I mean quality, and giant, compendiums for their industries/themes.

If some store sends me their catalogue, they’re soliciting. That’s the practice I want to go away.

Instead, say I am in the market for suits, I pick up a giant men’s apparel catalogue which has ads from every source imaginable. This can be a website too, paper is optional. I come to them when I need something. Every apparel store, vendor, and dealer is in there. It is competitive and neutral. The owner of the catalogue may not sell their own things in the same catalogue (amazon breaks this important rule). The owner of the catalogue is regulated and may not reject ads for any reason in order to avoid bribes from the vendors to silence their competitors. The ads themselves are regulated and must be truthful and informative, without the psychological manipulations. Talk about the product and do not talk about how I will feel after the purchase.

That’s the vision I have. Computer Shopper was pretty close to this.

Bring back catalogs.

Who here remembers Computer Shopper?

When I want something, I’ll come to you. Don’t come to me.

I think extremely large wealth accumulations must be banned altogether. There must be a ceilling on personal wealth.

That’s not necessarily an issue. The mob is often right.

I’ll take the mob over the despot any day, unless I am the despot.

Words are sufficient only in a system that prioritizes broad wellbeing (as opposed to prioritizing the billionaires), when such a system works well, is healthy, is valued by most, etc.

We don’t have it. We have a “every man for himself” and “got mine, fuck you” system.

I hate to say it, if anyone wants something in our system now, they have to take it by fiat and force. The fascists get it. They use the methods that work, it’s just that their desired end state is intolerable shit for most. If their end state had freedom and human rights for everyone, most would forgive the methods.

That’s what happens when the billionaires donate to all parties.

Right wing influencers and pundits are calling for war and killings as we speak.

We’ll see how they will be investigated.

Truth and “Truth social” are different things.

Truth is good.

Truth social is an orwellian social network that is at war with the truth.

Elon sieg heilling twice and then signal boosting facists and illegally cutting democratically approved and institutionally valid spending, that hasn’t radicalized anyone.

Totally normal behavior.

It’s gotta be the video games and the dark web. What’s dark web? It is any web space I don’t know about. Duh.

I am not a fan of a few billionaires locking up every freedom we used to have so they can keep trucking toward the world’s first trillionaire.

I think the concept of moderation by an individual needs more scrutiny. Why not build a software algorithm to allow for subscribers to vote on moderation actions?

In other words, instead of vertical top heavy moderation, privide a more level, more horizontal process, where our peers play a significant role, or even act as co-moderators.

We are recreating in software all the top down vertical hierarchies we tend to be sceptical of in the real world. Why?

Imagine if there were no jury trial? How much worse would things be?

So why do we build an online world with a lower standard than we use to build the physical world. That’s just sloppy.

Bias is inevitable.

It makes no sense to work to eliminate it.

It’s like trying to breed a new species of humans that are void of preferences. An impossible task. If such a breeding process somehow succeded, the resulting product would not be a human anyway.

If anyone claims to be unbiased themselves, or claims freedom from bias for someone else, even just implying that someone somewhere is unbiased, I immediately know bullshit is afoot. Such claims are not always knowingly malicious, but are always detrimental to my interests should I start foolishly believing them.

Tecnowashing is also fraud.

Take a failed concept like the gold standard, technowash it, and you get crypto scamcoins.

Greenwashing, sportswashing (saudi arabia), sanewashing (presenting insane ideas as debatable ideas, like debating human rights with someone who is against human rights ends up sanewashing the anti-rights position), small business washing (using ostensibly a pro small business argument to push a fortune 100 agenda), worker washing (treat workers like shit in private but make pro worker noises in public), gender washing (the politician with an anti-woman agenda is a woman so it’s OK), minority washing (a fascist pundit is a minority that fascism often targets, so fascism is OK now). Now we can add tecnowashing to the list.

Another example of technowashing is when a real estate company presents itself as a tech startup to inflate its valuation.

All this washing has exploded in recent years.

I use IronFox all the time. For me almost nothing is broken.

Once a year I find one low value site that I have to load in Cromite to see what it is, and then I never use that trash site again.

In other words, IronFox fulfills 100% of all my browsing needs excellently.

I used Mull before IronFox, and my experience there was excellent as well.

There is no good reason to use Chrome today or even some years back when Mull was the thing.

New people enter the market all the time.

That update is for those that don’t already have a Fairphone, presumably.

That said, I agree with your overall point. They should offer tablets and watches if they can.

Consumer activism, by itself, has rarely, if ever, accomplished anything.

The best recent examble was Tesla, but that wasn’t a mere non-buying action. Tesla action involved vandalism and a massive word of mouth campaign.

Basically if we want to fight for a future we believe in, we must stop playing patty cakes and fight like it’s a life and death struggle.

Symbolic resistance is not enough.

Don’t get me wrong, I still avoid buying Nestle products, and have for years, but I know this is not the way to real change.

I want us to stop suggesting consumer activism as a valid pathway to change.

I think both peace and war are profitable. But those that profit from war may be more pushy than those that profit from peace, and so may get their way even as an unpopular minority .

Unless, the left (usually more pro peace) learns a few lessons from the right and places good outcomes above the holier than thou moral purity. “I’ve never made anyone uncomfortable” is not the merit badge that some think it is.

Of course the left can never be a mirror copy of the right because the left cannot afford to give as few fucks about anything as the right (who represent the already-haves economic incumbents; it’s not called the “fuck you money” for nothing). But the left can be way tougher and nuancedly uncompromising and even calculatingly and carefully millitant.

Might does not make right but might DOES make POLICY.

You need both right and might to live under a good policy.

Lotta good it does anyone to be right and insightful on all the issues and have zero impact anywhere.

Quote from the video, “You can smell it as well,” refering to the turbine opetation.

They emit smell. That comports with the leak being gas and not just heat.