mindbleach comments on Can anyone overthrow Steam on PC? "As long as Valve is independent and not a publicly traded company," analyst says it looks impossible

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 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?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

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

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent