• vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    You are conflating very different things here, I’m afraid.

    I’m really not. You want a neutral marketplace that just provides a service without a profit motive. That’s what it comes down to. Because any service that requires a profit will naturally protect that profit, and that includes excluding suppliers that are actively sabotaging it.

    • mabeledo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      No, I want marketplaces to operate in good faith and following the law. Don’t think that’s so much to ask.

      • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Materially & historically speaking it absolutely is too much to ask, sooner or later someone inevitably gains enough wealth to rig the game, the only way anyone in history has ever managed to get anything resembling good faith out of “marketplaces” has been at gunpoint

      • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        There is nothing illegal being done by steam kiddo. And ‘good faith’ is defending themselves against sabotage, which is what ubisoft is suing for the ability to do here.

        • mabeledo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          There is nothing illegal being done by steam kiddo.

          That’s for the courts to decide, “kiddo”.

          And ‘good faith’ is defending themselves against sabotage, which is what ubisoft is suing for the ability to do here.

          Nice exercise of brand loyalty, but irrelevant in this scenario.

          • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            That’s for the courts to decide, “kiddo”.

            They did in the 1980s with walmart, kiddo.

            Nice exercise of brand loyalty, but irrelevant in this scenario.

            Incorrect, this is an ‘exercise’ of explaining a very basic fact of capitalism that has been happening longer than the word ‘capitalism’ has existed. This policy is the default for all stores on Earth.

            • mabeledo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 hours ago

              You are very clearly out of your depth here, and very much wrong, so maybe drop the patronizing tone a little bit.

              They did in the 1980s with walmart, kiddo.

              Unless you can quote the exact precedent, I’m going to take the Sherman Antitrust Act over whatever you say.

              Incorrect, this is an ‘exercise’ of explaining a very basic fact of capitalism that has been happening longer than the word ‘capitalism’ has existed. This policy is the default for all stores on Earth.

              Marketplaces can set the prices of the items sold at their locations. They cannot set the prices of items outside of them. Doing so is price fixing, plain and simple.