Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
So, Microsoft recognized and responded to all the complaints by removing the feature that people were objecting to.
Resulting headline: "Microsoft is trying to hide the evidence that they were thinking of doing that thing we hated! Hate them harder!"
Do people want companies to just ignore complaints completely because there's no way to satisfy anyone anyway?
ehh... I think you're missing the part where Microsoft is actively exploiting its customer base throughout its entire product catalogue - the likelihood that this is an actual win is no.
They’re tasked with infinitely growing their stock price. That is a suicide job. Working big tech in the USA sucks right now because there’s no concept of just maintaining and maintaining something well, unless you’re Valve and steam
You could always start suing the US government for allowing shareholder primacy in the first place. Stakeholder primacy is the way to go and everyone knows that. Everyone besides corporate knuckleheads.
This is my first time hearing stakeholder primacy as a term. Can you elaborate on what the grounds you’d sue the stakeholders on? Ie what is the legal premise that you’re proposing you can hold them accountable for?
I never said you sue the stakeholders. They could sue the government for allowing this shit in the first place.
Stakeholder primacy is just the opposition of shareholder primacy essentially. Stakeholders are the employees, the community/society around the company like the town or city it is in. As in they have obligation to care for that.
Do they legally have an obligation to care for that? I'm still not understanding what would make this even remotely likely to succeed.
This explains it well. Shareholder primacy isnt that old even. Stakeholder primacy used to be the norm and according to this article should also be the future goal.
So yes, this works very well and has so in the past. The current model of infinite growth is unsustainable both physically and environmentally.
Nothing. It's a pretty fantasy. Best I think we can hope for is a few monopolies busted up so some little guys can break into the market. That'll buy us about 20 years until those little guys have become the new Googles and Microsofts and Apples, and then we start over. We need to entirely rewrite how we do antitrust assessments to account for both vertical and horizontal monopolistic behaviors (a vertical monopoly is a company that controls the entire supply chain where a horizontal one controls the market and customer base. Historically, the US has been more concerned with horizontal monopolies.) It'd be great if we could come up with a better measure of consumer choice that we currently use. If you have the choice between 2 ISPs but they both charge the same amount for the same service, you don't really have a choice there...at least not a meaningful one.