Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8678652" data-attributes="member: 16814">That's a completely different argument than the one you made about speech should not have consequences.  OBS isn't close to a monopoly.  They are by no means the only way to sell or deliver content on the internet.  That's not the service they sell.  The service they sell is advertising -- people come to OBS because it's easy and there are a lot of products there.  That's not a monopoly on the market, it's just having the loudest voice that people want to speak for them.  If I get dumped by OBS, I can still market and sell my files online, I just lose access to OBS using their voice (their freedom of speech) to advertise for me.Here's the thing.  Your "profits" are not because OBS is the only way to distribute your goods, but rather because you are gaining the advantage of OBS's voice to help sell your product.  I mean, it's pretty clear you can set up your own website and do the things yourself (plenty of other people do this), but rather that if you don't have access to OBS' platform, then you will lose money because you do not have that promotion going for you.  To get this voice, you pay for it -- a percentage of every sale goes to pay for this service OBS provides for you.  You also get to not engage the hassle of figuring out how to do the sale and distribution on your own, so you're buying convenience.  Neither of these things is a monopoly.  OBS is not pricing out other options with predatory practices.  OBS is not engaged in unfair litigation practices to prevent you from competing the the marketplace.  The reality is that OBS is a thin margin operation in a niche market (although growing) and that's just a hard space to compete in to begin with.  A competing startup has to whether the thin years OBS already has to compete for a smaller slice than OBS has now.  It's not that OBS is a monopoly, or acting like one, it's that they're providing a thin margin service to a niche market and there's really only room for one or two vendors like that in the market to begin with.  You see this all the time in other niche markets.  Etsy is a great example.  The vast majority of products placed on OBS don't move at all.In this regime, it becomes important for the company to be able to protect itself from attack, especially attacks where they both have to bear the brunt of the attack AND continue to provide the attacker the benefits of their attack.  These clauses are reactions to a predatory scheme where a poster intentionally created controversy about OBS in order to drive more sales to his products on OBS.  That's it.  These are pretty measured responses to that -- they don't say no criticism is allowed (which they could do).  A corollary to your argument would be to say that the local newpaper in a small town that is the sole provider of local information to the town (outside of gossip and talking to friends) cannot enact a policy whereby they will not print advertisements for businesses that are openly racist, or personal ads that have a racist or insulting message.  This is the only place you can get these ads, so by your argument they should not be restricting what's said on their platforms.  This is obviously incorrect.  The argument you're making is one of a slippery slope and one that has a personal moral assignment that doesn't consider other moral assignments or the fundamental rights of the company to choose who they associate with.I feel like I just saw a unicorn.  Amazed, wonderous, but clearly a figment of my imagination? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification