400
The FTC isn’t too happy with Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard layoffs
(www.polygon.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
400 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
60130 readers
2782 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Microsoft has realized it can do absolutely anything and that the government will do absolutely nothing. And what is the point of all of this? A few already, enormously wealthy executives get a few more millions of dollars? Who fucking cares? The real important thing is the people doing the work to create a product that millions of others enjoy. That they have a job and can earn a livelihood. But none of that matters to the psychopaths who run these corporations. Why do we continue to allow this to happen? I don't know why I even bother writing comments anymore. I've depressed myself.
The only way to fight back is with your wallet. Unfortunately we are SUBSTANTIALLY outnumbered. It is what it is.
Who is outnumbered ?
People that are willing to abstain from purchasing a game in protest versus the "shut up and take my money" masses
I'm still boycotting World of Warcraft, even though I'm a big fan of Warcraft and RPGs.
I simply refuse to pay a subscription.
Luckily, that worked well and the game didn't take off at all.
When your weapons are dollars, we are woefully ill equipped
This is why I have no qualms about piracy. The workers get shafted either way.
i'm all for the government breaking up corps, or stopping mergers, but this one needed to happen. however much it cost to get Bobby Kotick gone, is a net positive.
besides, we're talking about spending Microsoft's money. they fucking got it. so what's the fuss?
if the deal had been blocked, how would that have been better for the industry? also, probably the more important question, how would that have been better for the consumer?
I'm not upset about the merger. I'm upset about Microsoft lying to the government and probably getting away with it. And the money should be used to pay the employees who actually create the products, not gone to enrich the assholes in charge, who think they do important jobs.
You're kidding right? Bobby Kotick doesn't give a shit, he's laughing all the way to the bank. He's the only winner in this situation other than Microsoft. Regardless of the Microsoft merger, he was on his way out, he would've left even if it hadn't gone through, this just gave him an excuse to leave quicker and get a fat paycheck on his way out.
It's also not about spending Microsoft's money. Yes they have it, but consolidating so many developers under one roof removes an aspect of the competitive market. Which historically means less competition, higher prices, less innovation and poor quality control.
But I mean, hey, you get CoD on gamepass now! That's pretty cool right?! Right...........?
What’s the alternative? Communism? State ownership of the means of production? Those are worse.
Yes, the only options are crony capitalism and communism. Nailed it.
Did not say crony. And yes, there are alternatives like feudalism, you think they worth mentioning? And I specifically mentioned state ownership too, so, you can count socialism (as economic system there too).
It's silent, but it's always there. It's like the silent q in 'cat'.
Cqat?
Doesn't it seem like communism and capitalism have the same end game? Company towns and one company that produces everything and you have no options. The only difference I guess is that under capitalism, the owners of the means of production are not accountable to anyone and can not be removed whereas under communism the owners of the means of production are democratically elected members of the workforce that are accountable to the people and can be removed if need be.
Are you sure you're not confusing communism with authoritarianism or fascism? Capitalism is more closely associated with the latter than communism.
In any place where state ownership of means of manufacturing was implemented it lead to dictatorship or dictatorship like state. So, one can see how one can confuse them. But no, I do not confuse them, for one is economic system, and another is political.
So, let me ask, in that model that you describe, who owns the means of manufacturing? State or not?
Why must the state own anything, for it to be a more equitable situation? The people who do the work should own the work, all getting a say in what happens, in terms of what they're doing, where they're going, and who's getting fired. The closest thing to "owning" an individual would have is a person, or likely a team, functioning as spokespersons for negotiating with the state or other companies, but only to communicate how the workers have chosen to conduct business, the only real power they have being communication.
So Unions under capitalism?
This is, yes, one of the options my post allows for.
So, we have it now, then? Or are you advocating for forced Unionization?
Perhaps not forced, I'm not really a fan of that much state control, but broader adoption, more public and government support (support, not force), things like this. I'll confess I don't have a "perfect" solution, I doubt anyone does, but it's definitely not any of the ones we're using today.
Yeah, I am here with you. That’s what I meant in my original post by “but what’s the alternative?”. It is just many here acts as if there is an obvious thing to do, but the reality is far from it.
Healthcare.
Why must the state own anything -with regards to the conpany-...
You mean in communism? I'm no expert but I believe it's the workers, even though "owning" doesn't mean quite the same as we use it now.
“Workers” is too abstract. Which workers? How is it handled? How do you start new business? Who/how it is paid? Who gets the profit? In what proportions? The natural solution is to have state ownership and saying “the state is the people”, but this is exactly what was done in, say USSR. And it does not work well.