| ▲ | samdoesnothing 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
So the problem with your fridge example is that if the product was as bad as you say, nobody would buy it and thus there is no risk of a monopoly. If the product is so good that everyone wants it, there goes the rest of your pro-consumer argument. This whole argument is a neat trick, as you smuggle bad outcomes into a situation where there aren't any by pretending that everyone wants to buy the horrible product. If you want to make a case that monopolies that arise from consumers overwhelmingly choosing a preferential product are bad, go ahead, but don't construct an impossible scenario where everyone loses their minds and buys a product that provides purely negative value to them just cuz. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | array_key_first a day ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
The key is you don't tell consumers. A pre-requisite for a free market is consumer choice, which deception naturally undermines. And don't even say "well the EULA..." no, doesn't count. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||