●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byshanen ( 462549 ) writes:
If "fair" is defined by the laws and the courts' interpretation of the laws, then it's fair by definition, but I actually think the fine should be much higher (and which should have been an option). That's because I value freedom above most other things, and especially above profits for the inhuman corporate cancers that are working so hard to take full and complete control over our lives. I'm not going to say much more about that part of it, though I will insert the more complete form of my sig:
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful + Truthful - Coerced) Choice{~5} != (Beer^4 | Speech | Trade)
Mostly I want to focus on a possible solution, though the ~5 is an important part of freedom. Insofar as freedom is about choice, we need to have some options to choose from. Research suggests most people can only exercise freedom with around 5 options at a time.
As implemented to solve the google problem, we need a pro-freedom anti-greedom tax system. I think this could be done with a progressive tax on corporate profits, where the metric of progressive taxation is the market share and the resulting number of choices in the market. In this context, each market should be defined narrowly and linked to the associated profits, which in many cases will require some analysis of the corporate financial statements. However large public corporations (with shares sold to the public) are already legally obliged to disclose lots of financial information, and I think that same basic system can be extended all the way to family corporations by considering things from the customers' perspectives.
Don't think of it as a penalty for success, but rather as a system to encourage reproduction by fission. The fundamental goal is to make sure that the customers are more free, not less. I don't even think that total corporate profits will be reduced, but describing the relationship of choice to competition to growth rate of the market's total pie would take longer than I want to spend just now.
twitter
facebook
bycolonslash ( 544210 ) writes:
Android succeeds because of how well it works. Blackberry, Microsoft, Firefox, Ubuntu, Palm, and others have made smartphone OSes and failed. Government isn't going to create more choice by fining the winners, consumers have to actually want choice, to want something different, in order for there to be more than 2 dominant mobile OSes.
byActually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) writes:
Android succeeds because of how well it works.
Android succeeds because of network effects and second mover advantage in the open appstore space. It has nothing to do with quality.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...