cross-posted from: https://lemmy.nowsci.com/post/5896434
Quest 1 becomes near-E-waste Apr 30
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
191 points (94.4% liked)
Anti-Corporate Movement
409 readers
1 users here now
This community is the first one on lemmy of its kind. It sits between the idea of anarchism/anti-capitalism and left leaning economic policy.
Our goal is to make people aware of the dangers of corporate control, its influence on governments and people as well as the small but steady abrasion of empathy around the world indirectly caused by it.
Current topics this includes but is not limited to:
- Meta's entry into the fediverse
- Game companies putting gambling mechanics in childrens games
- Embracer groups buyout and closing of smaller game studios
- IP trolls destroying small companies and keeping progress back for profit
Feel free to debate this but beware, corporate rhetoric is not welcome here. If you have arguments, bring them on. If its rhetoric trying to defend the evil actions of corporations, we will know and you will go.
Our declared goal so far is to have all companies and individuals worldwide capped at 999 mil USD in all assets, including ownership of other companies, sister companies and marital assets. The reason for this is that companies (and individuals) are not supposed to resemble small(?) countries with a single leader(-board) and shareholder primacy. Thats why we feel like they must be kept in check indefinitely.
But companies will just wander off The argument that large companies will just wander off is valid, which we embrace. We dont need microsoft, apple, google, amazon and other trillion dollar companies. There are small competitors being kept small and driven into brankruptcy by anti competitive behavior of these giants or simply bought up and closed. If starbucks left tomorrow, we would not have an issue with this.
But then we have x little microsofts that all belong to the same person(s) If in fact nobody was allowed to accumulate more than 999 mil in assets, they would not be able to own all these. And like defending agains burglary, it is not about complete defence but time and effort. You only have to keep the thief occupied long enough for them to be caught, give up or make a mistake.
But these giants have tons of IP which would then limit our growth Thats another topic we must touch on. We will (only this one time) take a page out of russias playbook and demand that IP of non complying companies (assets over 999 mil USD) will be declared invalid, which opens them up to be copied.
But then they will "live" in one country that doesnt accept this Correct, and they should be taken into custody the moment they enter the airspace of a country that supports this act.
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I never said a majority. I said a lot. You're twisting things again with your own narrative. Technology isn't the future, it is now. Video producers, editors, streamers, content producers, vtubers, game devs, programmers, web development, 3D software specialists including CAD, system analysts, composers, concept artists, environmental specialists, engineers, scientists in nearly every branch, I can literally keep going. Of these MAYBE two could get by with older systems. Newer tech, especially hardware, means more productivity. If you want to talk "majority", then the majority of high-end users, the very people who develop and release the very technological and scientific advances, save a significant amount of time by upgrading.
Then you have others whose lives are not defined by technology in the same way. People who go to work daily. Who go shopping weekly. Who get frustrated, stressed, anxious, and concerned about so many issues over such a wide spectrum. They buy tech for entertainment. Hobbies that are the very same as the professionals above. Gamers who are often willing to wait and yet will need to upgrade regardless, in less than a decade.
The list goes on. Yes, companies can take the hit, for a while at least. Heck, I firmly believe they make too much as a rule. There is no way they would be able to, say, provide constant and consistent support for items years old. 5 years isn't too bad. 7? Pushing it. 10? Unreasonable in many situations. So many more resources go into backend development, security, and any form of system update that it would boggle your mind, and I've only touched upon the sheer volume of work these things normally take.
Not all of it hard work.
Not all of it necessarily expensive work.
Just the sheer amount.
Most people are not high end users of technology. I don't see why you feel the need to say I'm twisting things around. It's crazy to me that you're defending these huge companies.
I am talking about consumer protections. 10 years is totally reasonable especially for the average consumer. I was just talking to a friend who is going to lose some support on their Nintendo DS lite, a console that still has an active community. The iPhone 6 is notoriously beloved. And there are tons of other older devices that people still use. You could probably go online shopping on a 10 year old refrigerator.
I don't really care that it would take a lot of work. Do not give a shit. They can afford it, or restructure their business model until they can.