undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgumby7y ago0 comments

Yes, but at the end of the day it should be all about the user, right?

For example when considering the cost of water pollution we don't try to balance the interests of the owners of paint factories with the interests of people who drink water. Instead we consider if the cost of compliance with new antipollution laws will be worse for people who use paint then the cost to them of drinking polluted water.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

mijamo7y ago· 2 in thread

It is all about the user in the long term. Google dominating and closing the internet is very problematic. In the long term, we could have users that do not go out of Google and just accept whatever Google give them as THE answer.

Maintaining a healthy ecosystem and competition is good in the long term.

There are many things that are forbidden even though the consumer might like them in the short term (ex: selling lower than the cost for retailers to kill all attempt of competition).

throwaway375857y ago

> selling lower than the cost for retailers to kill all attempt of competition

Which specific law are you referring to?

18pfsmt7y ago

Anti-dumping laws vary by country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)

Angostura7y ago

It should be about facilitating a sustainable long-term balance.

In your analogy, Google is the owner of the paint factory, yes? If not, why not?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse