freeassociate2

What will be interesting is when they apply the same standards to app makers. I’m willing to bet it’s the exact same dynamic, and that the most vociferous of complainers are used to operating in a market with highly consolidated competition.

pjohnt said:

"Decimated" literally means to reduce by 10%.  This word is used incorrectly all the time.

No, it’s not. While it’s original meaning may have been in rooted in tithing and Roman military punishments centuries ago, it’s modern, current meaning is accurate as used. As for the legacy language used by the legal profession… do you genuinely not understand the distinction? Do you speak to anyone in legal language? For that matter, do you tell anyone that you’re turning sinister at the corner? Or do you use ovation and truimph for their original, very specific meanings? Do you speak Indo-European in it’s “original” form? 

Anyone that doesn’t get that language is as organic and dynamic as the societies and people that speak it, doesn’t get to opine on what words mean. 

gatorguy said:

chasm said:

jbtuckr said:

Why does everybody want less relegant ads? Like bitch, I want to be shown things I’m actually interested in rather than shown some Dora the Explorer game or something 

True, marginally relevant ads are better than completely irrelevant ads, but I think the issue many people have is that it has become obvious that Google has gone far, far beyond collecting “what ads did this person click on in the past” and has an unquenchable in its quest to know more about you than you yourself do. And sell it to literally anybody, from potential employers to countries and other entities who manipulate elections with misinformation.

You've claimed before, often as a matter of fact, that Google sells personal data to other countries, companies, and organizations, yet never offered any evidence of it. Do you have any, or just spitballing and hoping someone believes you? AFAIK Google doesn't sell personal information to anyone, no exception. I'll challenge you to prove me wrong. Your silence will be proof enough who's right. 

That’s some unbelievably sloppy reasoning. If he doesn’t respond, he’s wrong? Go back to logic school kid.

I’m assuming, based on the lazy critical thinking skills presented here, that’s the reason you were also too lazy to do more than make an affirmative statement, sans any legitimate evidence. 

Not to mention… if Audible audiobooks through Apple Books in Australia are exorbitant, that’s entirely on Audible (an Amazon subsidiary). Not Apple.

I always found it funny that “anti-steering” is considered either illegal or unethical, when companies do it all the time through pricing by privileging (and de-privileging) certain entities. They should be required to give the same rates to every seller. No back-room deals. Competition doesn’t mean making rules that skew fairness. We know this in sports and many other areas of life. How is it we don’t know this in commerce?

22july2013 said:

At least anyone who is American can be happy that their legal system is more fair than 80% of the rest of the world's. Let the courts do their jobs.

EYE-ROLL. You clearly have little or no experience with the U.S. State and Federal legal system. Either that, or you’ve been sipping from the kool-aid.

P.S. I’ll spare everyone a diatribe based on personal research and lengthy experience with most levels and types of our “wonderful” system. If you’re really interested, there’s plenty of podcasts and organizations that advocate for fairness covering why the legal system here is a compromised rat-nest of biased outcomes. (Not to mention the attacks and pressure on said groups carried out by entrenched and powerful interests.)