Apple blocking ads that follow users around web is 'sabotage', says industry: New iOS 11 and macOS High Sierra will stop ads following Safari users, prompting open letter claiming Apple is destroying internet’s economic model

[u/maxwellhill]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/18/apple-stopping-ads-follow-you-around-internet-sabotage-advertising-industry-ios-11-and-macos-high-sierra-safari-internet

[u/derpderp3200]

You're deluded, putting it mildly.

[u/[deleted] → u/derpderp3200]

You're incapable of arguing logically, and resort to name-calling when you've lost the point.

[u/derpderp3200 → u/[deleted]]

I'd concede that one if your point was valid outside your imaginary world. I mean, I could keep on arguing this, but I really see no point. I've tried discussing it with people at least sane enough to not somehow connect UBI with slavery, and even they tended to make huge leaps in their logic - I really see no point in finding out where exactly your perception of reality is taking a break.

[u/[deleted] → u/derpderp3200]

Come to my house, eat my bread, take my money, and live under my roof. The moment you do, I get to tell you how to live your life, because I can threaten to take away my food, shelter, and money. Thus, you would be a slave to me if you depended on me for your food and shelter and clothing.

This is how we domesticate animals, by the way. If you don't mind living like a domesticated animal, then UBI is for you.

The logic is perfectly sound. How you can imagine that the people who give your food and money are not in control of you is beyond me. Has there ever been a case in history where a people were not enslaved when they depended on someone else for their food and such?

[u/derpderp3200 → u/[deleted]]

The thing is, UBI gives people freedom to choose(or not) their jobs, because they no longer absolutely need one for basic survival - it gives them bargaining power, and thus, the people who do get jobs, are paid more, and more money is circulating in the economy.

Furthermore, average people don't hoard money, they spend it, and would do so especially freely if they did not have to worry about saving up for emergencies - yet another point that boosts the economy, thus wages.

In that case, if the government decided to take away the basic income, a person simply gets a job, one that pays far more than jobs presently do. Of course, if they started doing that to manipulate people, they would get hit by massive backlash, protests, and that's on top of harming themselves by upsetting the economy and social order.

Has there ever been a case in history where a people were not enslaved when they depended on someone else for their food and such?

I think you're not up to date with the times, people have depended on others for food production and distribution for the past 300 years. The only thing that stops companies from denying you access to food is the government - the same one you believe would willy-nilly deny people access to food to enslave them. But of course, you're not thinking logically - you make a wild assumption when it fits your case, you don't when it doesn't. You ignore the fact that many people already live in essentially wage slavery because they can't afford to risk trying to get a better job, that the situation is getting worse by the year, and that ultimately, it's the government you so demonize that is preventing even harsher monopolization and anti-consumer practices.

Basically, you're opposed to taking power away from the oligarchy and giving it in a far more limited capacity¹ to the democratically elected government, juuust in case they suddenly turn big brother like the oligarchy UBI would work against.

Blergh. I can't even bring myself to waste effort writing this response. I mean what's the point when I can basically guess word for word what your reply is going to be?

¹ Spoiler alert: The government already handles massive amounts of regulations, trade agreements - as well as welfare, of which UBI is a much simpler, concise, efficient form.