“Free speech” means freedom from consequences from the law, not necessarily from individuals who are allowed their own judgment accordingly
cgarret3
joined 2 years ago
Oh?
You’re sure (guarantee) that this would have been a stabbing? What makes you such an expert?
Totally unrelated, but have you ever seen the movie Fargo?
I don’t know?
I don’t wholly disagree, but I do take issue with the “they’d be none the wiser”
Even the average person knows there are more options than the original default browser. I have no love for windows, but long gone are the days when they didn’t prompt you for “would you like to make this your default browser” when you downloaded something else.
Try changing the average user’s web browser that they’re accustomed to overnight and tell me they don’t pitch a fit
I was obviously being facetious. Poking at the fact that rich vacationers visit the Virgin Islands while endorsing the above commenters opinion. Yes they (virgin islanders) need infrastructure as do many places.
Did you really read that as if I’m worried about one needing community and not about another, or were you being a dick?
Pffff that’s poor people. What about the rich people on vacation for a week?? When will we learn to think about the rich people?
Right, but the Browser Wars are long dead and Google essentially won, then proceeded to build their business upon that outcome. It is surprising that they would opt to potentially lose their market share, (which is in the ballpark of 70% of users!), to reclaim the 10% they may be able to take from Mozilla.
** I want to add: I relatively recently watched the YouTuber Louis Rossman’s breakdown of u/Spez and his ridiculous handling of Reddit api pricing. The conclusion was basically that spez discarded his business sense to chase a vendetta. He wasn’t pricing to maximize Reddit’s profits but was pricing out Christian because the latter was more articulate about the issue at hand. I believe we’re seeing the same… that some exec within alphabet decided enough is enough and he is going to make sure adblocks die, regardless of what business sense tells us
I truly don’t understand their motivation to do this. It is the definition of anti-competitive behavior. Maybe they hope that a lawsuit will arrive at a default judgement on adblockers? Or maybe they’re just so brazen in that the US government won’t break up one of its prized conglomerates? One thing is for sure, Mozilla is going to continue to be awarded headlines
The term is secure or self-secure.
As in: “it didn’t bother him because he is secure in himself”
Yes, sorry, I made a mistake when linking. The commenter PoolloverNathan left the correct link
view more: next ›
“Generous” is the noteworthy takeaway. Either ‘currency’ belongs to society and some people hoard it instead of circulating it, or ‘the world’ ‘belongs’ to a very select few people.