That is more of a US than an EU point of view.
US is more "If you're not a monopoly, feel free to fuck the customer"
EU is more "Consumers have rights, quite being a dick".
The context here is one particular type of fucking over the customer. The ways in which monopolies can abuse their power. Within that one specific type, what you said is probably accurate.
(I pay for 1 and I get what I pay for. People respond when I ask for help)
The US has very little of that, aside from the occasional recall. Instead, we have a predatory legal system that thrives on lawsuits instead of regulations.
My point stands, however.
The SEC's existence doesn't change that. It's like saying we have a EPA and a ATF. But those aren't consumer protection agencies either.
Or you're the worst apologizer in the world, jesus christ, go read a tutorial or something.
And no your point doesn't stand. The defensiveness about it being exactly alike would matter if it was an analogy, but you did not make an analogy. Non-analogies do have to match, and that is not an unreasonable standard.
How about you quit being such a pedant. An example is not supposed to be exactly the same in every way. It doesn't even need to be mostly the same. It can be only kinda sorta maybe related and that's ok. It's just an example.
Somehow analogies an examples came to mean perfect clones. That's not what they are.
You don't need to apologize, but a fake apology serves no purpose except to annoy people.
A fake apology that claims "genuine remorse" is extra annoying.
> How about you quit being such a pedant. An example is not supposed to be exactly the same in every way. It doesn't even need to be mostly the same. It can be only kinda sorta maybe related and that's ok. It's just an example.
Examples do need to be the same. That's the point of examples, they show what something is.
You can have "an example of something related", but that's not evidence of whatever it's related to. It's ancillary information.
This isn't pedantry, this is how you explain things and argue points. I can't fix an incorrect example by steelmanning your argument, the way I could ignore an actual issue of pedantry.
On the other side, an analogy doesn't have to be related at all, but it takes significantly more to set up. A connects to B the same way that X connects to Y. It looks very different from an example.
It absolutely is. The whole point of these corporations is to serve us with good products and services. That's why society allows them to exist at all. That they get to turn a profit is merely a side effect meant to incentivize them. If whatever it is they're doing is not good for us, it absolutely should be prohibited. We couldn't care less how much money they're making or losing, it's literally not our problem.
You aren't disagreeing with me.
They're in anti-trust proceedings. That is the proper way to handle any harm they're doing.
And...as I said...that doesn't mean they are doing anything nefarious. They're conducting business as any other business would, they just happen to be really good at it. If the regulators want to step in, they can. It's the system working as intended.
While I would agree that Google doing it may be detrimental to consumers, it's not suddenly nefarious when they do it. They're just doing what any company would do. It's not their job to look out for the health of the market or what's best for consumers. That's the governments job. It's Google's job to look out for Google and their shareholders.