This guy’s business model is being hated so much that people will pay for him to get beaten and everyone is eating it all up.

Was he the one in a recent Vox (or Vice?) video about enshittification of the internet?

But it isn’t truly open though is it? I thought it was owned by a company.

I disagree. I’ve done it multiple times. It just doesn’t work in the way it’s done today.

And this would only make the insurance that much more expensive to everyone.

I mean thats the point, you are paying for reducing risk. If there is enough competition between insurers the average profit they make should be quite low.

The winners of wars write the history books. There are so many peaceful small wins that we don’t share enough. Violence does not have to be the answer, but we lack the imagination to believe this because we are not being taught the peaceful ways. Not even in movies and games.

Well because if you crash right after making the insurance there won’t be enough in your “savings”.

Because debates in the US are often set up to be a fight with a winner and loser. Real debates are about learning and instigating truth. Those debates are effective.

But you’re not immediately shipped out of the country. How it really works isn’t much better, but it’s important to be clear about how they do this. They get taken to temporary jails which have horrible conditions and they they have legal right to appear in court. But because these courts take a long time and the jail is inhumane, many people “choose” to accept the demand of leaving the country.

What is a VM?

Does DNS and having a privacy focused browser work?

Just saying gay people would skew this result

Edit: I should say: the freedom of gays to live their lifestyle, which means gays can create communities and build their friendships that way.

Well, the way I understand this, if we did it for reasons related to their prices and quality, yes. They could use the money to make their production cheaper or quality better.

But this ignores the fact that they might not be able to lower the prices or increase the quality enough for any of us to return to them because we are all doing it for other reasons. If we do it because they are rent seeking to make us hooked by locking us into systems, having proprietary features, and exploiting child labor or whatever they do, then they might stop doing these things if there is enough pressure. Then we might return to buying. But a company cannot will not gain much from stocks if there is no chance to have revenues in the future. But the stocks would also become worthless. I think as consumers we should choose more ethically, to force companies to improve their practices. And not treat it as a cancel culture (I believe boycitting a practice work better than boycotting a company politically). For this to work consumers have to accept lower quality for a while. We have to be okay with not having the top proprietary features in order to use alternatives that have been kept from catching up with the big ones.

It’s also wrong that this has a negative effect on the economy. If people consume less and save more, those savings will be invested by banks in businesses.

I wonder if there is a good update since the 3 years ago when it was published

If we want that, we’d just pay for it right?

Any politician who has been “regulatorily captured”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Joseph Stiglitz have made a convincing argument that inequality can entirely be explained by rents. That without rents (coming from monopoly power, companies influencing politics, private ownership of land) we will not see rising inequality. Which suggests that we can prevent excessive inequality with anti trust laws, land value taxes, and heavier protections against political regulatory capture.

Rent-seeking politicians exist in any political system. The problem are in the rules of the game.

Its not just the demand, its also monopoly or duopoly of suppliers. These suppliers prevented competition by making sure they are the only ones allowed by students to use.