I live in an area where it is actively dangerous to protest, especially considering what minorities I am. I am surrounded by whites who fly trump and blue lives flags. I work in a city that puts signs up stating “RESPECT THE POLICE”, where the police will hassle or arrest you or worse for very little. I can’t trust…

I mean, neither does lecturing someone for voicing their frustration. Good for you for volunteering (assuming you’re actually doing that and that OP isn’t), but internet comment sections aren’t typically where real change happens.

I am voting. but there are things that are evils that are deeply imbedded in this country. Systemic racism, misogyny, billionaires, privatized healthcare and a complete and total lack of any concern for people who can’t make rent, have to work multiple jobs and the homeless. a complete disregard for trying to…

I hate this fucking country.

You need to make your own blog. This is tacky.

Actually, selling below cost is the definition of anti-competitive behavior.  See “Predatory Pricing.”

What you’re describing isn’t “anti-competitive” though, in fact it’s just how business works.

By the way, just because I can’t edit the original but I think people might be being a little unnecessarily aggressive: I think we’re on the same page, but I guess I’d say the idea that this is business as usual is probably correct but also kind of the precise point this inquiry was making.

You’re looking at it the wrong way around (as most people on here are). Apple’s dominant position is in distribution (iOS currently accounts for 59.1% of mobile devices in the US - I just checked) and the App store is a gateway that only gives developers content owners and retailers a single channel to reach nearly…

Of course it’s “anti-competitive”. It’s explicitly “abuse of a dominant position” in anti-trust law (US) or Monopoly law (EU/UK). It isn’t Amazon’s ability to start a diaper company that’s the issue, its the ability to start one and operate at a loss until the competition is crushed, and in the case of the techs,…

What Kingwolf described is the very definition of “anti-competitive.” 100%. You have your definitions fucked up.

What you’re describing isn’t “anti-competitive”

Surely intentionally selling at a loss, i.e. creating a market that you know is unsustainable for you or anybody else, based on a calculus of a temporary situation that you can survive but that a competitor cannot and entirely to destroy said competitor, is the definition of “anti-competitive”?

Would you rather call it a duopoly? The main thing is that a small group of corporations (and their executives) is controlling every facet of tech and they have non-competing, collusive, agreements with each other to gouge the customers.

Amazon released a lengthy statement in which it argued that being a big company doesn’t necessarily make it an anticompetitive one,

I think I made a joke about looking like a mime, minus the beret, and a coworker offered me a beret he had in his office. 

Rules for thee, not me.

“I’m special, though!” - Republicans

But the real question is did you commit to mimery for the entire day?

I went to work once in a breton striped shirt, black pants, and black flats, and realized after I got there, aw fuck, I accidentally dressed like a mime!