Those might be the exceptions, at least for now. Ever since Firefox's crusade against IE the majority of people seem to still know there are different ~programs~ apps to access the internet with. As long as Chrome is not the default in the overwhelming amount of the operating systems, this might even stay like this, which is why I'm extremely unhappy that Android ships with Chrome these days and not with a thin gui on top of the system webview, like it used to.
EDIT: this ties in to the conversation I had on different platform recently, that it's getting arduous to make people understand that an app is not necessarily the same as the system behind it. Choosing an email client used to be a thing (Thunderbird, The Bat!, Outlook Express, mutt, etc; to name some across contrasting needs) not even too long ago. I despise that we came to a world where even the tech moderation fails to understand an app != protocol.
> As long as Chrome is not the default in the overwhelming amount of the operating systems, this might even stay like this, which is why I'm extremely unhappy that Android ships with Chrome these days and not with a thin gui on top of the system webview, like it used to.
That is also why I was rather sad when Microsoft announced
that they won't develop their own browser engines any more.
I disliked IE as much as anybody else, but what I did like
was the competition. With Edge switching to Blink,
essentially becoming yet another partially-degooged
Chrome, part of that competition is gone.
A little polemical, but there's some truth here. We've become so fixated on left-right as the only dimension that whenever you advocate for something clearly in the centrist-ish public interest, all anyone wants to know is which side you're on so that they can reduce you to a caricature.
Which prompts the question, who is responsible for all this vitriol? What people or corporations are driving us further and further into these two filter bubbles?
It used to be that if you even uttered the words "freedom of speech" here you'd be instantly downvoted and jumped on by five people saying that censorship is only when it's done by the government. Some people still double down on supporting the censorship, but at least no one even mentions that free market argument anymore.
Let me get this straight - you're saying "true libertarians" are people who decide to stop caring about advancing libertarian causes because someone else exercised their right of free speech, and now cheer for the loss of liberty of people they don't like?
No, I'm saying true libertarians have been getting ostracised by polite society for years now.
I'm a massively left leaning libertarian, if it weren't for its consistently proven failures in practice I would be a commy.
But here I am, over the years of commenting online I've been labeled a trump supporter, a Republican, alt right, white, male privileged, white privileged, racist, pseudo intellectual, biggoted, transphobic, and a Nazi.
Aren't libertarians all about the absolute sanctity of private property over all other concerns?
How is a pro-business ideology remotely justifying government intervention in the practice and moderation decisions of a private company? Wouldn't the rectification involve the government specifically dictating their business behaviour?
Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association. Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but some of them diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems.
If you want to get specific on the economic front I diverge a bit and fall somewhere along the mutualism line of things where I'm more interested in a pragmatic free market socialism. Basically just do what you feel like but don't be a prick about it, and yes, we'll organise some free healthcare and education.
Robin hood investors disliked a move by management and voted with their feet to place one star reviews.
Google removed them all.
You can but ma private companies if you want but you're only pointing out how monopolistic these platforms are. Good luck with antitrust Google. You gonna get fucked over a barrel. People are waking up.
Google is not a monopoly in the App Store market, but even if it were - how are you going to stop it? Google's property is it's property - it is entitled to do as it pleases. At what point in libertarian ideology is the government supposed to step in? And when it does: and do what? (while still being plausibly a libertarian movement).
> Aren't libertarians all about the absolute sanctity of private property over all other concerns?
They divide themselves on left-libertarians and right-libertarians. What you're thinking about is right-libertarians, so anarcho-capitalists, minarchists etc.
There needs to be a term for otherwise libertarian-minded people, who also understand that the platform should revolve around correcting the power imbalances between large wealthy organizations and individuals, whether those large organizations are governments or corporations. I don't see why we can't restrict the ultra-rich billionaires while still protecting the small-to-medium rich who actually did bust their ass to gain their fortunes.
