|
|
|
|
|
by creesch
578 days ago
|
|
Yeah, I was afraid it would be replied to through a US pov. A lot of these essentials are actually "handed out" or at least subsidized to some degree for people with lower incomes in many countries. Of course this could also be done for browser but still would leave people vulnerable. To get back to the US. So you think it is a good idea to add yet another expense to vulnerable incomes in a country where there is much less of a safety net? |
|
Of course you can define "subsidies of some degree" to prove your point, but that doesn't change the fact that most people in the world generally have to pay for things, even necessities. The major exception being basic education which seems to be universally provided for free.
I have no idea what sort of a burden paying $5 for browser software would place on poor people, but I am sure that society would find a way, much like it does with other necessities. I also disagree that a browser financed by advertising is less of a burden to the vulnerable. The advertising revenue comes from the products they purchase.