On the other hand, once the procedure is done, you've got an entirely new world of possibilities available to you by way of alternative facts.

The procedure is easy. You just implant synthetic factoidal tissue where the factual glands used to be. (They hand this stuff out for free on Breitbart, and there are DIY tutorials on 4chan for performing the surgery on yourself using ordinary kitchen tools).

Jon's moving the goalposts of how you define monopoly to how economists do it, lol.

TL;DR: The literal definition is “single seller”, but a market which is more than 25% controlled by one entity (or a group acting in concert) is said to be monopolized. The pertinent question for policymakers and economists is whether a firm has monopoly power (can extract monopoly rents and fix prices), not whether there are literally no other companies selling.

is that a gender?

i'm doing my impression of conservative humor in the ben shapiro thread

keep your day job

more like get a day job you mooching socialist millennial

cant be a socialist if you arent a worker

yeah but how can you mooch of you're a worker?

millenials exist in a superposition of laziness, roughly speaking!

You see when you look at the data, you'll see that millenials are able to do this kind of instant flip flop where strangely enough, if you really look, they are two things at once, it's really just incredible, where they're able to, in some cases, have both three jobs with no benefits which nets them too much for SNAP, but also be freeloaders off the system who don't know how to work. This is a consequence of neo-marxism and postmodernism of course!

Do you have a relative by the name of Alex?

Who’s Alex Jones???

Is what I wish I could say, except the technology companies that enable him are spineless and greedy simps only interested in doing the barest minimum possible to avoid getting dragged along with him as co-defendants.

One interesting thing is that we don't even expect the corporations in our country to act morally, only legally. And then we appeal to fairness and objectivity in our rationale of what's legal (or fair according to the corporation's own stated rules), but only based on a somewhat outdated myth of what the social benefits of so closely sticking to such bare bone guidelines as to what is legal or fair.

For example, the myth goes that platforms like Twitter are global platforms for free speech, which empower citizens who either might not otherwise have a voice, or who simply must use the platform to engage in speech anyway because it has become so popular.

But then this myth starts to wilt once Twitter itself admits that Infowars broke its own rules. And then it becomes very hazy, because what exactly are they going to do when it becomes clear that a vast amount of content already on their platform violates their rules, and that for an unaccountable, hierarchical entity like Twitter to simply unilaterally decide what content to purge / permaban would probably be massively unpopular among certain users, and cost them a non-trivial amount to pay humans to actually perform the moderation.

But those probably aren't even Twitter's biggest worry. That would probably be the (perhaps well founded) fear that any such 'purge' would likely lead to a mass exodus of toxic users to some other open wound on social media, just like when Reddit users threatened to move to voat in response to the shutting down of subreddits like fatpeoplehate.

And that might spook their stockholders.

hmm actually the tl;dr is still probably just

But I think that part of the problem might be that we don't even expect our corporations to behave differently. As in: we are too scared to give them any kind of moral agency, because of the power to censor that might endow them with.

And frankly, this is probably a well-founded concern. But then that just makes me think that services like the internet are really simply wholly incompatible with such large, for-profit social media corporations. It seems to me that really the best solution would be to force any social media company to be non-profit.

Unfortunately, this would mean that we'd see less people working full time to improve Scala.