you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 week ago* (14 children)

And now your saying to do nothing but shrug and wait.

That's what I've said the entire time. That sentence does not mean "the risk becomes real only if we are fools who do nothing." It means "the risk is real even when the appropriate course of action is to do nothing." It is not a distinction.

People insisting that Steam is a monopoly are implicitly arguing action should be taken about it.

No.

it doesn’t matter what word you use

It does because basically any other example would be a problem that needs solving. Even now, it has far-reaching effects, some of them dire, and we tolerate them because any direct solution would be worse. Those problems are still real. The label is still accurate and necessary.

Stop saying it's not a monopoly just because we tolerate it.

I don’t disagree with you

Demonstrably false. If you think saying it's a monopoly requires action, that is the central disagreement.

And will you be just as upset in a year from now when your failure to say anything of substance has again caused me to not remember you?

If you're still telling people an obvious monopoly is not a monopoly if the monopoly is kind of okay, yes, I will still explain why that's the exact same mistake. Internalize the definitions you claim to acknowledge. Stop saying it's not a monopoly just because we tolerate it. You cannot agree that it meets the definition and still argue about the words used. That's denying it meets the definition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    You want people to acknowledge that Steam meets the legal definition of a Monopoly. I acknowledged that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (12 children)

    And then you said:

    People insisting that Steam is a monopoly are implicitly arguing action should be taken about it.

    So I guess the question is - what do you want to do about it? If you are in fact saying it is a monopoly (and you're not just saying you say it's a monopoly) and saying it's a monopoly must necessarily imply a call to action: what is that action?

    The right answer is that there is no such call. So maybe you could stop insisting there is, and about ninety percent of this conversation would fall under 'sure, oops, nevermind.'

    Meanwhile any conversation about Steam's marketshare - for example an article asking "Can anyone overthrow Steam on PC?" - kinda has to bring this up anyway. It has an impact... and a lot of people will implicitly or explicitly say nuh-uh, at length.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (11 children)

    Meanwhile any conversation about Steam’s marketshare - for example an article asking “Can anyone overthrow Steam on PC?” - kinda has to bring this up anyway. It has an impact… and a lot of people will implicitly or explicitly say nuh-uh, at length.

    Except, the article doesn't say the word "monopoly" anywhere in it. If you wanted to have a conversation about Steam's market share you could have just mentioned Steam's market share. Then you don't have to worry about other definitions of monopoly. "Steam has a significant portion of the market share" is true regardless, and easily followed with "and that's a concern because..."

    But you're not interested in a clearly communicated conversation. You're just arguing semantics and pretending you're making a point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago (10 children)

    So you acknowledge it fits the definition people actually use, but calling it the thing it is must be "arguing semantics?" The fuck.

    Steam's market share is a monopoly. That is the subject whether someone uses the word or not. That's why it's so goddamn weird that people circle the wagons whenever they hear it applied to this one blatant example. That's either kneejerk denialism based on brand loyalty, or a cartoonish misunderstanding of how markets work. Or apparently a third thing where you insist you agree but also nuh-uh.

    The comparison you used was calling the sky azure versus calling the sky blue, and you - yooou - are the one insisting that it must be one and not the other. You are the one giving me shit for using a label you claim to acknowledge as factually correct. But I am talking about Steam's overwhelming market share. Because it's a monopoly. That's what the word means. They're the same thing.

    This conversation basically goes: 'This room's really crowded.' Yeah, there's an elephant in it. 'That's not an elephant! Elephants gore people.' Followed by a literal year of explaining, even if this elephant does not do a thing which elephants can definitely do, it's still a goddamn elephant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (9 children)

    Fact: Steam meets the legal definition of Monopoly

    Fact: Steam does not meet the dictionary definition of Monopoly

    Fact: Steam has an obscenely high market share regardless of which definition you are using.

    Please let me know which fact you disagree with.

    Give the conversation you remember so well from a year ago, you are well aware some people will have the dictionary definition of monopoly in mind. Likely because it is the most accessible. You could have bypassed all this nonsense about facts 1 and 2 if you just went straight to fact 3, but that would have required you actually caring about fact 3 more than fact 1.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago (8 children)

    'Some people insist it's not a monopoly' is restating the problem.

    Any discussion of Steam's overwhelming market share requires the question 'why does overwhelming market share matter?' and the answer is 'because that's a monopoly.' We could dance around the word itself, and just describe an elephant, but that only delays when people with misconceptions hear the word for this animal and go 'nuh-uh.'

    That delay would be worse - because it allows for people who acknowledge all the reasons Steam is a monopoly, and all the reasons that monopoly is a systemic risk, but will still insist with kneejerk certainty that Steam doesn't count. It's some other distinct thing, despite the absence of difference. That denialism is a lot harder to deal with than just telling people:

    Real markets never have absolute monopolies.

    When people say monopoly, they mean the legal definition.

    Dictionaries which do not reflect that use are incomplete.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (7 children)

    why does overwhelming market share matter?' and the answer is 'because that's a monopoly.'

    That's a tautology. It would be equally relevant to say "why do monopolies matter? The answer is because that's an overwhelming market share."

    Neither the word "monopoly" nor the phrase "overwhelming market share" inherently share the concerns of that situation. You've even been arguing that the using the word monopoly doesn't actually matter: "do nothing about it, keep doing what you've been doing is fine".

    And to be clear: are you saying to disagree with the fact that Steam does not satisfy the dictionary definition of monopoly? Or with that fact that people are more likely to be familiar with the dictionary definition rather than the legal definition?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (6 children)

    It's cute how the word is interchangeable with the situation only when it suits your bickering.

    When people think the word can only mean the cartoon absolute, weee shooould fiiix thaaat. I sure the fuck have not been arguing the word doesn't matter - rather the opposite, at length. You just keep insisting risks don't matter until they become actionable problems.

    We must recognize this monopoly, because of the potential problems it can cause, even if those problems are at present only potential.

    We really fucking ought to use the word specifically for this situation, because people already fucking know why monopolies are bad, even if they're confused about what monopolies are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (5 children)

    even if they're confused about what monopolies are.

    So if you just said obscenely large market value that doesn't diminish or minimize the risk, and neatly avoids the confusion about what monopolies are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago* (4 children)

    We could dance around the word itself, and just describe an elephant, but that only delays when people with misconceptions hear the word for this animal and go ‘nuh-uh.’

    That delay would be worse - because it allows for people who acknowledge all the reasons Steam is a monopoly, and all the reasons that monopoly is a systemic risk, but will still insist with kneejerk certainty that Steam doesn’t count. It’s some other distinct thing, despite the absence of difference.

    Pretending there's a difference doesn't avoid the confusion... it is the confusion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (3 children)

    If there's no difference in meaning then it doesn't matter which you use. If there's a difference in understanding it makes more sense to choose the clearer option.

    As I said before: we're not going to find a middle ground between you claiming your distinction is meaningful, and me saying it's meaningless. One we remove that from the conversation there's nothing left because you haven't really said anything else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    Are you sure? Will you finally stop saying that the label implies a call to action, next time someone uses it? Even if that someone is me, yet again?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (1 child)

    Yes, I fully agree you've said nothing at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago

    You think that's an insult when it's a breakthrough. Assuming it's true this time. You've already lied about it repeatedly, before circling right back to the same irrelevant assertions. If you finally understand the simple reality of the situation and have a low opinion of how plain it is, that beats the hell out of actively refusing to get it or shut up about it.

  • source
  • parent