In the early days the internet was a free, egalitarian space for anyone to surf. Now, commercial interests rule – but users do still have some control.
I’d argue there’s enough difference there to flag them separately. The original number two is more about personal responsibility; choose a different retailer, go to a different place, etc. Voting with your wallet so to speak.
Government regulation, while it’s still about people pushing back against companies, with the state of most western governments at the moment you can’t assume they will automatically have the public’s back. So there’s a tie in to the personal responsibility aspect by electing representatives who represent your interests, but given that’s not always feasible (either because not enough people share that view to get someone elected or because there isn’t a suitable candidate available to support) I would argue it’s distinct enough to warrant its own category.
Regulations and anti trust laws would both fall under a government intervention category though I think.
You are conflating Consumers with Citizens, a classic pitfall of modern neoliberal democracies.
Just because people willingly Consume a Product does not mean they think The Product is good or even that it should exist at all. Neoliberalism is unable to acknowledge that, because Everything is a Market and the Market is Infallible.
In reality, the game theory is such that individuals may not have the means to get out of the local minimum they found themselves stuck in. Prisoner’s dilemma and all that. That’s what representative democracy is supposed to solve, when it isn’t captured by ideology and corporate interests.
A few of us still remembers option 3) Regulation And also 4) Properly working anti-trust laws.
Those are both the same, and would fall under #2.
I’d argue there’s enough difference there to flag them separately. The original number two is more about personal responsibility; choose a different retailer, go to a different place, etc. Voting with your wallet so to speak.
Government regulation, while it’s still about people pushing back against companies, with the state of most western governments at the moment you can’t assume they will automatically have the public’s back. So there’s a tie in to the personal responsibility aspect by electing representatives who represent your interests, but given that’s not always feasible (either because not enough people share that view to get someone elected or because there isn’t a suitable candidate available to support) I would argue it’s distinct enough to warrant its own category.
Regulations and anti trust laws would both fall under a government intervention category though I think.
You are conflating Consumers with Citizens, a classic pitfall of modern neoliberal democracies.
Just because people willingly Consume a Product does not mean they think The Product is good or even that it should exist at all. Neoliberalism is unable to acknowledge that, because Everything is a Market and the Market is Infallible.
In reality, the game theory is such that individuals may not have the means to get out of the local minimum they found themselves stuck in. Prisoner’s dilemma and all that. That’s what representative democracy is supposed to solve, when it isn’t captured by ideology and corporate interests.
I’m actually not, and my word choice was intentional. If you’re not consuming these goods then you hold no leverage, and probably don’t care.
Do you not consume a single Google/Meta/Microsoft product or do you not care about their abhorrent business practices?
Yes and no.
I don’t understand.
Then you’re knowingly engaging in the consumption of abusive products? Do you not see how you have literally no leverage whatsoever as a consumer?