Comment on Itch.io apologise for "frustration and confusion" after delisting thousands of NSFW projects

• umbrella@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  power already did find a way, and thats called privatization.

  source

  • rottingleaf@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Yes, because without one government that was helping them out, punishing their competition and funding them, also making regulations convenient for them, Alphabet, Meta and others would be even more powerful. /s

    source

    • Signtist@bookwyr.me ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      ...those are all corporations. Nationalization would make it a public service, rather than a corporate profit-driven service like how it is now.

      You can bet that if libraries, for example, became privatized, we'd quickly see several different library companies pop up, each with their own paid book subscription service with exclusive partnerships with various popular artists, much like we have today with streaming platforms. Conversely, if we were to nationalize those streaming platforms, we'd likely see the service transformed to be more akin to our current library service.

      It's why the rightmost parties generally want to defund many public services and move them to the private sector - it transforms services that we spend money on to benefit the people into services that the people spend money on to benefit corporations.

      source

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I don’t believe in nationalization. I only believe in a simple, small and very firmly enforced set of laws.

        It’s not about for-profit or not for-profit, it’s about laws being used to force you to pay to a certain kind of businesses. And not to whoever you like.

        Because a paid library is kinda fine as a concept. A library has to function, repair chairs, change lightbulbs, pay security guards and, ahem, librarians, pay for new books and electricity and so on.

        So - laws forcing you to predictably pay to someone involved in making laws. Copyright laws, surveillance laws, other laws. And the state having its secrets, and doing a lot of that funding and pressure and what not in secret.

        And the more complex your set of rules is, the more it turns into “money buys right”, because it turns into a game where the side with more money on lawyers and technical solutions to loopholes wins.

        The rightmost parties which want to defund public services are perfectly complemented by the left-center parties which generally want to have unaccountable funding of some public service. It’s not a left\right\yellow\blue issue. It’s an issue of a political system where only those representing some power interest are able to act. Just there are some power interests in replacing a public service with a private monopoly\oligopoly, and some power interests in feeding from the public service itself. I’m pretty certain that, similar to hedge funds, these ultimately end on the same groups of people.

        One can even say that this is a market dynamic.

        So - the political system is intended to ideally function like a centerpoint, not the milking mechanism described.

        The problem is

        1. in a too complex set of laws (honestly I’d suggest a limit on the total amount and a limit on the length of one law, and a referendum week once in 5 years on every law from the list suggested for the next 5 years, dropping all that was before ; when the laws are so complex that you can be right or wrong in any situation depending on being poor or Bezos, it means that the idea of having a specific law for every situation has just failed),

        2. in too many levels of representation allowing power to affect representatives,

        3. in there being no process to at any moment initiate recall of a representative,

        4. in not wide enough participation, it would be best if the majority of population would participate a few times as a representative in various organs, this can be made with making those organs more function-separated and parallel, with bigger amount of places and mandatory rotation, so that one person could become a politician on one subject once for a year or so,

        5. in there being too much professional bureaucratic entities inside the government,

        6. in no nationwide horizontal organizations allowing to 2A through any situation,

        7. in trade unions and consumer associations (there was such a thing too, ye-es) being almost dead.

        So just have to fix these 7 points, and life will be better.

        LOL, this is something averaging the classical (as in ideal, never really existing) American Republican ideas and the classical (as in functioning for a few years in early 1920s and late 1980s) Soviet system. Why do they mix so well, LOL.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • umbrella@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      its almost like their monopoly made them powerful and they used that power to control the state. 🤔

      source

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I think it’s the other way around. See, hosting a service on the Internet carries some obligations.

        The state treats them so that those are much easier to fulfill for these platforms.

        The state gives them very expensive projects.

        The state kills Aaron Schwartz, purely coincidentally also the author of the RSS standard. That thing that comes the closest to a uniform way of aggregating the Web, which would kill a lot of what platforms provide.

        The state makes some of their products standard for the state, making those commercial things necessary to interact with the state.

        So, the state does a lot to give them that monopoly in the first place.

        source

        • -> View More Comments