▲ | shadowgovt 2 days ago | |||||||
it feels like there's some lack of equivalence that makes this analogy invalid. Unless junkies have started a new service to help me find the nearest hospital that I'm not familiar with. Otherwise, spontaneously blocking Google could cause material harm to people reliant upon it. You'd be surprised how many users are so net-ignorant that they wouldn't even know how to get to Bing if their default page stopped resolving. | ||||||||
▲ | BrenBarn 2 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
If the junkies are providing a service, then they are Google in this analogy. Taking away drugs from junkies does cause material harm, but perhaps long-term good. Certainly I acknowledge that Google provides useful and maybe even essential services to people. But just because we want those services doesn't mean we necessarily need to allow Google to continue providing them. A parallel in the drug world might be shady pharmacists who get people hooked on painkillers. Yes, maybe it's good to have Vicodin, but that doesn't mean we need to let this particular person control it. Similarly it might be good to have maps, but that doesn't mean it's good to have some megacorp controlling them --- even less so if they try to use that as leverage to prevent regulation of other harmful aspects of their business. | ||||||||
|