| >>...which means if a western subscription services wants to compete with a cheaper local equivalent Interesting comparison. Let us discuss that a little further. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... So Facebook provided free internet to Myanmar, and it was better than the "cheaper local equivalent" because it was actually free. Soon all the ISPs in Myanmar were out of business. Facebook was now synonymous with the internet in Myanmar, and suddenly it became a lot easier to influence people into doing pogroms. Now clearly a "western subscription service" successfully competed, and unfortunately, the pogrom did not affect the "western subscription service" in any way while millions of real humans became refugees. Generally, people's answer to this is something like "yeah, it is too bad the people were such idiots to be provoked into such violence" or in some way blaming the naivete of the local population. But imagine if Facebook was actually asked to pay compensation for every affected person, or to stop business operations in Myanmar altogether. See, you can actually do that with a local company because they have some real skin in the game. To complete my point, I don't actually give a damn if a "western subscription service" can compete for my business unless I have a way to drag Zuckerberg (figuratively speaking of course, a minion of Zuckerberg will do) to my country for trial and then send him to the local prison if found guilty of some local law. Think of it as "terms of providing service". >>it sounds like you have a proverbial axe to grind Indeed I do. It is called "stop patronizing the people of my country". >>none of your points are even remotely relevant to the conversation If you feel so, that's OK, although I would obviously like to see a more specific refutation. |
If you want to argue that American corporate culture is a toxic breed of short-sighted greed or that developing economies are better served with local businesses then at least try to do so without all the conspiracy theories and personal attacks. It’s not exactly a hard topic to argue rationally after all.
> Indeed I do. It is called "stop patronizing the people of my country".
It’s not “patronising“ to say that companies need to offer regional rates to compete in regional economies.
You might argue that its unfair to put local companies out of business or that western corporations deserve no claim in developing nations; but that’s categorically not what “patronising” means (and also a very different point to the one I was making).
Don’t just take my word for it though, look the word up in any of the numerous online dictionaries :)
>> none of your points are even remotely relevant to the conversation.
> If you feel so, that's OK, although I would obviously like to see a more specific refutation.
I wasn’t trying to refute your claims (mainly because most of them were far fetched - even by your own admission). I was saying they’re a complete tangent to the topic of conversation.
Look, if you want to bleat on about the evils of western influence on developing economies then fine. But at least acknowledge it’s a largely unrelated rant to the conversation that precedes it.....and also don’t make accusations about other HN posters when you don’t understand the terms you’re accusing them of.