Which is exactly how the real world works. Harm has to be identified to suggest solutions. Otherwise you‘re becoming the helicopter parent that denies their kid every opportunity to learn and cause allergies and other bad outcomes. Translated back to the fediverse: it is great the way it is and improvements are always encouraged. We have much bigger and more pressing issues. This is not it.

I agree. What do you think would help?

I have heard of a law or precedent that put CEOs under the reign of the shareholders instead of the company, customer and society.

Do you happen to know what legislation did that change? Maybe that needs to be overturned.

Edit: I found at least the term. It is called shareholder primacy.

Maybe that shouldn’t be possible.

Okay. Let me rephrase that: why are these the only brands that make printers except niche ones?

Too much competition in a 10 player market? This is an oligopol and likely the reason why there is an entry problem.

What eludes me is that literally nobody except hp, xerox, canon, brother, dell, epson, kyocera, lenovo, lexmark seems to be making decent printers.

I know that the printer business is rough for sales people for some reason (the guy who I learned sales from 18 yrs ago was a printer salesman before becoming a coach). But what I don’t get is that there does not seem to be good money to make for small companies as they are not gaining on the big ones.

Is everything locked by patents or what is the deal here?

Honestly, this is nothing but rage bait to me. Every person who makes a remark like this should go to jail for a cool 20 yrs. I had an incident last year with a nonprofit I was working with where people were sharing memes of asian chefs (with text bubbles giving them the stereotypical r to l change) serving bats to unknowing western guests… I asked that this practice is stopped and got publicly humiliated for my „unprofessional demeanor“.

I can’t tell you how furious I am about racists.

Quick correction: website scraping and ad blocking is not unlawful. It both is a means to make the web more accessible and the latter also reduces CO2 emission through reducing electricity usage from irrelevant ads. The same case could be made for web scraping as a user can make their own feed of news without having to sift through hundreds of pages. This as well can be done in a way that does not disrupt the pages‘ normal function.

That is where the two larger issues come in:

• people can argue that you need to pay for viewing a page/getting information through apps And
• branding powerusers as criminals („unlawful“) is unfair and false

The „pay for information“ is largely a phylosophical problem. It is no problem to pay for someones book or online course but the blanket statement that one has to pay for it is false. As an open source developer I give my work freely to others and in turn receive theirs freely as well (if they use the appropriate license of course).

We really have two sides forming. The „open internet“ crowd that works together for free or maybe accepts donations and the proprietary crowd which is having a huge influence right now.

Google putting in web DRM will cement that situation and make it possible that you can only use vanilla stuff on your browser and ultimately even shutting down any access to open source things completely by making it impossible to run on ubuntu since google will only accept windows clients (this is a possible outcome, not a guaranteed one).

All in all, we are unable to perfectly anticipate the outcome of this but if we see great harming potential, it is fair to weigh it agains the potential benefits (which is the lofty goal of weeding out bots and scammers). I think the cost benefit relation is heavily tilted here.

TL;DR: Tinkering with your browser is not illegal and should be allowed to continue. The cost of (potentially) weeding out bots and scammers is not worth potentially ruining the open source community.