Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Yeah cause showing people ads is not anti-competitive
Sure. Sort of. But this isn't about competition per se, it's about abuse of an already dominant market position.
The ultimate purpose of ensuring competitive markets wherever possible is to protect and benefit consumers. Since firms that dominate their markets tend abuse that position to price-gouge or reduce the quality of their products without fear that their customers will go elsewhere -- because they can't -- foiling anti-competitive practices is part of that consumer protection mandate -- but only part. Preventing harm being done to consumers by market-dominating firms once they've attained that position is another part.
The fact that Microsoft has so many of their users captive (because their job makes them use Windows, or because it runs software they can't get elsewhere, etc.) and is now forcing exposure to advertising upon them should run afoul of the consumer protection goals of anti-trust law.
The fact that they were once brought to heel just for bundling a browser that you could completely ignore with Windows, and yet face no regulatory blowback from literally forcing their captive audience to view advertising is what irritates me to no end.
They hated him because he told them the truth.
„Shoving ads down people’s throats“ - ftfy