Monopoly and capitalism on the internet and websites

sad but true
the black pill is the final pill, because there's nothing left to realize afterwards anymore

M8 just say centralization and monopoly and please stops using that shit term used by marx (I think it's marx who made it).
Capitalism doesn't have any meaning nowadays since social justice use that term for anything, just describe what you think is unethical.
TCP/IP is outdated compared to today's need of anonymity and security yes.
There are three solutions to this. First you either become an advertisement spreader, and god that's difficult. Second solution is to not rely on advertisements and use distributed methods for your website. Third your userbase crowdfund your website.
That's a logical fallacy that normies spread like the plague.
Until it influence society and that it helps it collapse out of sheer insanity. Like right now.
These will be used against you. Don't do it.

wtf did I just read?

AFAIK, Zig Forums does not sell data, provide your fucking sources

CIA has pedo dirt on Jim Watkins
They forced him to give full access to server and database, now every post on Zig Forums is literally transferring through Central Intelligence Agency

Fucko ddg, bing, yahoo all fucking work. You are just pissed people all use the superior google. Imagine every supermarket had 5 types of cheese all right next to each other, and one was better so 99% of people bought it. MUH CHEESE MONOPOLY.

He's a high level freemason for fucks sake, he knows who he answers to.

Nigger we just need decentralized internet, and a web of trust to filter out garbage corporate content. The problem right now is it's too hard for anyone to even publish good content (let alone entries in a web of trust). They have to buy a domain name and hosting, neither of which make sense.
There's also a major lack of good content because most people now are consumer whores. Let's look at music for example. Every single band is either full cucksumer (has a record label and sponsors and shit, does "tours", sells t-shirts, music is generated by a music generating program,etc), indie (is 100% clone of other bands that claim to be "indie"), or independent. The real independent category is like 0.0001% of all music, and is where most of the good music is. Since good music requires true talent and creativity to create, the corporate cocksucking contest could never produce anything that remotely holds up, unless the artist is actually into music and puts out maybe one album before selling out. The entire world right now is a bunch of faggots reaching for fame and money, nothing more. That's why all content of any type is shit. Learn some skills and make something good yourself to set an example.
Now let's talk about the sheep. The sheep only like what other sheep like. The sheep hate or pretend to hate anyone who isn't a sheep. The sheep call the police if you do something non-sheep. Also no, jihading will not help, it will just make the sheep more religious. If you want to set a real example make something good (which will end up being illegal because it's anti-sheep), and publish it. For example, I'm about to finish my image viewing program which no other will ever come near. It will be called nigchink (yeah I've been shilling this for like a year now but I finally found a way to get scaling to work in

The real redpill is music is computer generated bullshit BECAUSE most people LIKE that shitty autotune commercial sound every popular song has.

Fuck off kike. If you are really (((blackpilled))), what is the point of draging others into your faggot void?

Based. You motivated me to get my lazy ass back to K&R and AOE. I am gonna make some shit called fgtguesslike or incelavv.

The point of pulling others into that "void" is that they don't waste their time trying to fix society and instead spend that time and effort building, helping and protecting their own families and communities which is something that is actually doable and will give them a buffer from the shitfest that is the bigger society, and will be the only way to survive if modern civilization breaks down.

Can you really say it's capitalism when 99% of all these monopolies have all been in bed with the government, military, and intelligence bureaus?

The problem is capitalism has never in history not been "crony capitalism". The bourgeoisie have been in control of government since the French Revolution, and before that the economic system wasn't capitalism, it was feudalism.
The libertarians who say everything would be splendid if we just could take the governent out of people's private business aren't much better than the commies who say everything would be splendid if communism was implemented just right. None of those have ever happened. Sure, there are different degrees to which government helps the elites, but they always do to one extent or another.

Nice try with your fedposting, FBI.

You fucking agents really need to git gud at subversion. Y'all are shit at this. SMH

PLEASE WATCH THIS : 8ch.net/googlecensorship2019/index.html

Your void blackpill idea is stupid. People don't try to "fix society", but rather do things that bring them fulfillment. For some people that means writing the best software they can, because that is who they are. You're not going to convince them to give up on their life purpose by idle talk. Basically you're ineffective and only waste your time spamming/trolling chans when you could be doing something more fulfilling.

this is because irl things don't exist in absolutes and "crony capitalism" itself is something inbetween capitalism and leftist shithole, a mix of 2. it doesn't mean it's always the same, the proportions are fixed or equal or whatever. the premise of libertarianism is not commies' "let's shit everything up and when is drowned in shit it'll turn into gold" but "the less leftist shit there is the more prosperous the society will be". Granted, there will still likely be shit but it's recognized as a problem, is fought with as a practical matter and certainly not defended.
Fuck off with your shitty bugmen babble >>>Zig Forums
Don't be a brainlet, libertarians don't say that. Most libertarians don't think it should be immediately and completely demolished as it'd likely cause everything that was tied to it to crush. Most support gradual removal of government interference which does help improve economic conditions without causing chaos. Libertarianism is not only about getting rid of the current government but not businesses(protip, the worst of them always end up entwined with government activities and might as well be considered government agents) but also about maintaning property rights, enforcing contracts and preventing governments to emerge from wherever, be it other countries, gangs, unions, corporations or any other thing, all while keeping the order to make long-term low time preference decisions secure and plentiful.
So your point against libertarianism is kinda moot since this applies to your brand of political ideology at least twofold.

You called it a void. I don't think it's a void, I just think it's an unfortunate fact of life.
A lot of people get fulfillment from activism because they believe they are going to change the web or the United States (or European) government in a big way. But that pleasure from the feeling of action means very little if the actions don't work, and they or their families end up being killed because they didn't prepare the right way for what might come out of modern societies.
Having good software means very little if there's a civil war and the city that user lives in is blockaded or the supply lines collapse for some other reason, and he goes hungry because he didn't stack up on or grow his own food, or a gang steals his supplies because he didn't prepare a good defense, or he dies from a flesh wound because he didn't have antibiotics.
Trying to help Zig Forums anons be safe is fulfilling enough.
I don't know, maybe I'm just wasting my time, or maybe somebody listens to my ideas and it helps them in some way. In any case it's not a big investment of time, so I don't care too much one way or the other.

Yet, nothing would prepare you from what's coming from (((them))). You had been warned about machine learning and mind control, see that news from jewgle? The only way to be safe is going innawoods, farm your shits and use only pen and paper. Even then, you would be the last group to be targeted by sates. This isn't about how bad things really are, this is how things get worse. Yes, this is blackpilled fucking world. But no, the real blackpill has its core red. Giving up before dying, conforming to (((them))) or hiding in your basement is not an option. When they are done with us, you are the next.
Fighting is the only option. The best defense is offense. And no, don't get me wrong, defeating (((them))) is useless. The only fight is for freedom, not for user count, hitrate, anti-brainwash for normalfags, etc. Those who fight for freedom have already won. Those who willingly give up the fight are no different from normalfags that willingly give up their freedom. Are you one of them? If not, learn how to fight and get back your freedom.

If you're going to say "crony capitalism" is different from capitalism period, then you should compare it with socialist utopia, because both are ideals that have never existed in reality. There are plenty of leftist shitholes in existence.
Some libertarians might talk about the problems which won't go away just by removing leftist ideologies from government, but not all of them and in my opinion not the majority.

What do you think could've been done? We don't control these projects, they do. Even if you brought down a power line or kill some manager somewhere, it wouldn't change anything, and now you would be in serious risk of going to jail for no or little gain other than being useful as propaganda. The only interesting way to fight back that I can think of would be to build a fort with a group of people willing to fight and see if they're willing to have another Waco on their hands, but it's very hard to get people to follow you like that without becoming a religious nutjob, and not too different from preparing for a SHTF scenario anyways. The benefit being that if you had guards willing to stand up to the government then you could shield your family and community from vaccines, brainwashing, CPS, etc.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather be safe than being shot or rotting in a prison somewhere but being fine with it because it happened while I was fighting for freedom.

That's the opposite of what i'm trying to say. What libertarians mean by saying "it's crony capitalism" is "these bad things we caused not by the free market but by interventions in it" and indeed the less free a society usually is the bigger shithole it is, proportionally.
I never mentioned any such problems. Try reading comprehension next time.

youtu.be/O-q6J4Bqrg8
Omg.. Wtf

Whoever I replied to used the term "void". It wasn't my choice of words.
Anyway your problem is you require other people to do things your way, to work for your goals. You're constantly posting this blackpill emotional shit in places to try to force people to do things how you see them. So that means you're dependent on them, and that's a really bad position to be in. But hey, it's your choice, I don't care. I also don't care if there's a civil war or economic collapse. Those things happen, and the best I can do is to take steps to protect myself. I'm never going to change the course of history, but I can prepare for and mitigate problems. And that's all that matters to me, because quite franekly I don't give a damn what the rest of society does. I don't control them, nor do I wish to.

In quotes, because the person I replied to called it that way. I didn't imply myself it was a void.
I only post on Zig Forums, or maybe on Zig Forums very occasionally. Maybe you're thinking of blackpillfag, that's a different guy.
How am I dependent on people who read my posts? I might not even have a two way interaction with them if they don't post themselves.
Sounds like you hold the same position that I do, then.

there is easy way to change that. identify those corrupt people, maybe with help of DNA analysis, then exterminate them in gas chambers. if after some time those people develop from random mutations, just kill them again.
genocide works

kill all of them

ban marketing and kill all marketers that keep doing it

Don't need many people, need some strong people and organize them

they don't choose to like this. they like what they are told to like

genocide, terrorism
or removal of life from Earth

It's not the opposite of what you're trying to say. At first it might be free, but my hypothesis is that the free market causes corporations to benefit politicians in various ways (campaign donations, multi-million remunerations for speeches, etc), and spread propaganda to make people support parties which then pass laws to make the government perform interventionism in favor of big corporations, thus being (the free market) an unstable system. This is generally called regulatory capture. Maybe the magnitude of this problem can be reduced by introducing legislation which is a priori biased against corporations, which is part of the leftist ideology. Even if the free market prevails, it causes other problems of the kind called negative externalities, to which I refer below.

...

If there are politicians the market is already unfree, unless you think that politicians can exist without a government.
There are no parties as there is no voting process, for starters. And it's a lot easier to prevent this when there's a clear line between violence and voluntary organization, thus making a government forming a lot harder than it would be for a government to expand if it was already in place. Not only that, it'd have to be very good at doing it's things or noone would follow, outside of some communists and the pawns of other prophets of "market failure".
You're simply paving the ground for a new magnitude of abuse, leftist.
Nah, it's just you're a big-brained centrist dipshit that imagines the problems that weren't there or are worse under free market.
And free market strives to isolate the participating parties from bystanders, that's the point of it. That's why when you form a contract it applies only to you both, unlike a law which ends up in an eternal tug of war and leftist ideologies taking place by assuming it's the natural order.
mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution
TL;DR pollution counts as damage to the nearby property and can be resolved via compensation which is also a limiting factor that depends on the demand in the products of said technology.
Aka, something that'd not be possible or would be easily resolved if people weren't denied a right to defend themselves or if the police weren't a bunch of lazy fucks.
Even if you think that gayness is contagious, assuming your child isn't following his father already, that's the reason for closed communities to exist. Some people simply refuse to live together and unlike a country, free market has a solution that allows dissociation.
In the short run, i.e. to grab some and get out of business. In the long run, there's always competition so the potential intentional damage to reputation might be a bigger problem that this, although it's hard to do and would likely damage the interventionist more than others, like most of such actions within the market do. remember, they aren't just there for the sake of it, the only product they are selling is their trustworthiness, their ability to neutrally resolve issues. If they fail that, they lose their selling point. Not only that, you could still operate as a non-profit 3rd party if you want to be helpful and prevent market failures. If you can't trust for-profit entities then you might be able to trust those who arbiter to prevent scams and such which many might argue is a moral thing to do. As long as you do not aggress against others you can still do that and as it's an essential thing for society there would likely be volunteers.
Terms of contract. Either that, or just each part picks those who then dispute and make the decision, be it another court or just a trusted person.
if he is the one who refuses to cooperate then he will be trusted as the one who breached the contract, with him forced to pay compensation and with his shady reputation being likely denied many services and agreements in the future.
The problem is there appeared too many "libertarians" who have little to do with libertarianism, i.e. full on open borders(not confused but full on) crowd or "left libertarians".
Depends on how much "minarchist" they are. Many late traditional monarchies were that way, as well as other countries that can be considered "classically liberal" like the US.
That i agree with.

Not all economic elites are the products or users of the regulatory capture. Accepting a notion of such a "class" means surrendering to the left rhetoric of "if he's rich that's because you aren't".
The idea of historical periods is another leftist invention and, like any other shitty historicism has its place in the trash.
Again, you're conflating
Given how you present yt as an example and your argumentation, i doubt that you were anything but a normalfag that picked something because he heard it on 4chan. Another victim to the "i was a libertarian like you before" meme.
have you tried searching in places other than youtube and facebook?
Because you've presented a lot of false premises here.
Nah, just dissociation and isolation would work great, the only "vigilantism" i accept is the extermination of communists, or physical removal of them all at the very least.
How nicely you ignore the way the capital was acquired.
Again, how can you color these things unproductive if you ever were a libertarian? Are you a keynsian of some sorts? Or just a full-retard leftist with LTV instead of brain?
Only profitable in an oligopolistic setting with limited speech and selective advertising, unless you count informing customers instead of scam and small lies that way?
wiki.mises.org/wiki/Charity
You're not very smart, are you? effective =/= all-encompassing although the opposite is not always true.
Don't pretend to know everything you're talking about, it's deceitful and dishonest.

How about building a better (and open source) alternative? Otherwise you're only part of the problem.

You can create alternative websites. Creating a "free speech" website won't work, in part because they'll ban your ads, but mostly because moderating shit content is important for attracting users. In the early days of reddit, most of their content was just employees cross-posting things to make the site look lively. You should try doing that too, otherwise it will just be avatarfagging and shitposting.

Hopefully all the x-pillfags above will stop shitting up this thread long enough for us to stay on topic for a bit.
I don't think it's going to be possible to disrupt the current Internet oligarchy with the current Internet model ie the centralized model. It is far too expensive for a single person or small group who want to create a website because they have to pay for hosting. They can probably personally finance it in the beginning but if their website starts becoming successful it will be far too expensive to expand hosting to what is needed.
This is why we need P2P websites. If someone's website starts becoming successful it will naturally scale as more people opt-in to seed the site - requiring no financing from the website owner. The only problem I can see here is that people might be too apathetic to care to opt-in and help host the site. To solve this I think part of seeding the website could maybe involve running cryptomining software and every computer that is seeding is added to the pool. This is just a brainstorm but I'm certain that there has to be at least some financial incentive for people to seed a site.

Depends how elite are we talking. In any case, most capital is probably owned by companies who engage in schmoozing politicians, and if not, it’s a minor nitpick.
That’s just ridiculous. Yes, there’s no precise point at which we go from one identifiable period with respect to certain variables to another, but different ranges of time show different characteristics.
Conflating what with what? I’ve heard the richer elites have royal ascendancy, but the power of the ones that are rich comes mainly from their money, not from their relative position in the monarchy, it that’s what you mean.
If you don’t consider me a real libertarian, that’s fine. Doesn’t make the rest of my arguments invalid. I just mentioned it for the people to whom what I did is enough to be considered a libertarian.
I don’t use facebook. I have read articles and papers online and didn’t find a thorough analysis of those issues. I posted that link specifically because the content of that video would also help you to better understand what I said about private courts if you happened to check it out.
It would help everybody if you point out which ones you consider false and why. Expressions of agreement or disagreement with no explanation from anonymous users aren’t very useful.
It’s useful, but not perfect. One problem is most people won’t recognize influences for what they are. For instance, the vast majority of people will take their children to the movies, without considering what messages the movie is planting into their mind.
Another problem is most people aren’t willing to do what it takes to be truly isolationist.
If most people were ready to do what it takes to be isolationist and stood up with guns at the gates of their homes when the taxman came, the state would be without power in days. But they aren’t, so you only get a Waco or a home made tank every couple decades. And if not enough people are willing to do it, then the government (or a wanna be government) can just concentrate their efforts on what little resistance there is, crushing them with overwhelming force.
Libertarians often say if we lived in a libertarian society, there would be no violence because violence would decrease profits. But that’s manifestly false. The entity characterized by the biggest amount of theft and violence is also the richest organization in almost every country. Theft is profitable, violence is profitable. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a state in the first place.
If we lived in a libertarian society, the most successful companies would pool up their resources and use them to impose taxes on people, growing their resources and perpetuating the cycle. They would impose a government just like the one we have now.

You’re on the right track, but the problem is not enough people will risk their lives to fight with you against the communists and social democrats to give you a chance to win that fight. You and people who think like you could be more effective if you get to install yourselves in the role of being a government and steal just enough from rich people (who got their resources through being in cahoots with the previous government anyway) to fund your operations, becoming a benevolent dictatorship, so that no other entity can easily grow their power with malicious purposes. This is because it’s easier to become the government than to kill enough government enforcers and other communists and social democrats so that you can keep them out of your premises.
Personally, I think it might be good if whoever is in the government steals a little from rich people and gives it to the poor or uses it to buy stocks in corporations, just enough so that not a lot of resources are directed to frivolous purposes such as yachts and mansions and are used instead to buy machines for manufacturing and research or given to non rich people to increase their quality of life, but not so much as to heavily impair the total production of the economy. But all that is secondary to the requirement that regular people are left alone by the government, and not prohibited from having certain arms, required to get certain vaccines, required to give up a considerable amount of their wealth to the government, required to be indoctrinated in schools, punished from discouraging homosexuality in public, required to pretend biological facts such as IQ differences between black and white people exist, etc. So I would support a government that collected no taxes at all if those requirements were met, rather than a government who collected taxes/stole from rich people and gave it to regular people, but didn’t meet those requirements.

...

On the contrary, I’m pretty smart. I thought it would be clear I said government handouts are empirically more effective (meaning, how well it achieves its objective, assuming the objective is purely transferring resources to people), not that charity isn’t effective at all.
I’m not pretending to know everything about what I’m talking about. Nobody knows everything about what I’m talking about. I just know some things, which I’m sharing with you.

...

And I already explained the problems with the solution (taking it to courts, ideally private ones, and demanding either compensation of cessation of activities) proposed by the Mises Institute to negative externalities in the message you responded to.
If whatever court system is in place fails, then the affected parties would have to resort to violence to stop the negative externalities. There are at least two problems with this.
The first one is that it might be cheaper to outmatch the firepower of (and kill) or at least threaten into submission the affected party, than pay the sum they would accept as preferable to the cease of operation of the aggravating party without threat of force.
The second one is that it is more likely for a corporation to organize an effective military offensive, than it would be for a group of people who have little in common other than being at the receiving end of the negative externalities in question, thus making it more likely that the offending party will initiate an attack (and win) than the offended party making a stance and winning against the offending one, ceteris paribus. Diffusion of responsibility is a well known problem when it comes to individuals within a group investing resources which benefit the whole group, because for any given contribution the marginal benefit is very small. Another way to think about it is that transactions with positive externalities are under-engaged in with respect to the amount at which every individual belonging to the group benefits the most. This kind of phenomenon is the basis of the prisoner’s dilemma.
Sometimes people won’t be at home, and security systems can fail. I agree the problem would be much less of a problem if people could defend themselves, but still, if there are enough attackers the probability of somebody being able to defend himself without injury, death or economic loss decreases.

...

this tbh

cringe

go back to /marxism/