All things considered it seems they got a pretty good deal out of it

They are not forcing anything. Nobody has to opt in.

This is exactly what they did with .webp

So basically they’re using their monopoly to force through changes in internet standards? Sounds like the EU will be paying a visit soon.

It’s all about ads/ad money/data, it’s heavily bleeding into a single issue. It’s not like some giant manufacturing company doing shady things with their cars and air conditioners, all the subsidiaries are interlinked. You could say WEI is just a Chrome thing, Google is just their search engine, AdWords is just an ad service etc, but they’re all part of the data to ads to sales pipeline.

There’s no overarching anti-trust conversation to be had because there’s currently no anti-trust cases, if there ever will be. The comments under each individual instance of it being required is the “big conversation”. As a content aggregation site (mainly news) the only place it could realistically occur is under some wishful thinking self-post nobody would care about.

I also saw people pine for trust busting just the other day under some Amazon article, there’s simply nowhere else to post about it at the moment.

Wonder how many international and domestic workers they’ve contract rugpulled, since this will probably be the one that flies under the radar due to all the other issues.

Fediverse about to be eating good

The Darkwood devs did this even though they only have one game out, they even uploaded the torrent

UK & EU loves this stuff though, so they won’t mandate you have to use a single phone app for everything, but they will slowly remove your ability to do anything without your phone. You’ll just end up with a shittier version of China’s system with a billion shitty apps.

They’re Chinese. They’re from the Republic of China.

But there’s no law that governs what a ceo can or can’t do with regard to profit or success, as long as they can show they were acting in the best interest of the company.

This may be technically true but it doesn’t play out like that and can’t due to structural reasons. The situation arose from Henry Ford paying his workers substantially above what was deemed necessary because he wanted the workers to become consumers, preferably Ford consumers, and the shareholders instead wanted the extra bit in those pay packets to go to them instead. The shareholders took Ford to court and won. Now shareholders for the most part aren’t even people or small groups who can be persuaded by things like growing a healthy consumer base in the economy, they’re various large funds trying to simply maximize the amount of money they generate independent of any thought about overall economic health.