Owners win.

If I have a plot of land with some cherry trees on it, I can get a landless person to pick most of them for free.

I make an offer “for every 100 pounds/kilos of cherries you pick for me, I’ll let you keep 1”. If the person who receives such an offer has no land of their own, they have to agree to avoid starvation.

That’s why our system needs a huge class of the landless, resourceless, and assetless people. Then for the priveledge of touching a privatized resource you have accept the privateer’s conditions.

Fencing off resources and protecting the fence by the threat of death is how this scam works.

And it is impossible to fix this societal problem by simply trading more and better as an individual. The ruleset of the game is tuned for mass free energy extraction from the assetless class at the macro level.

At most only for those that are willing to call him “god emperor”.

Only until he gets bored of it. Once he gets bored of the boot lickers he’ll make soap from them.

There needs to be a hard cap on wealth at around 100 mil, but defined relative some multiple of a median yearly salary.

If the salaries grow, the total wealth cap can grow too. And vice versa.

Large wealth should be about luxury and having lots of toys, and not about being a law-making aristocrat who is themselves outside the reach of the law like now.

People who hit wealth cap should have no privacy, and be banned from any interactions with the government. There should be some trade-offs to huge wealth. A mega wealthy person should lose something for the priviledge of having so much wealth. Also mandatory psychiatric tests, to make sure they are human and not a lizard in a human suit. OK, I am joking about the last part.

Because he or she works for Google’s image and status management interests.

Does not matter consiously or unconsciously. Does not matter paid or free. Dependent or independent. Good faith or bad. Bot or human. None of it matters.

What matters is the result of their action/speech, and the priorities. And it is loud and clear what those are.

“Google must be trusted and given all the information first. Then, if you can find mismanagement, try to prosecute your grievance AFTER an injury has occured and was proven.”

^^^ We need to flip the script here.

Protect your iterests first. Google’s interests mean nothing to you.

If Google can serve my interests they get paid. They don’t get freebies or deference or first dibs or ownership of the phone, or part ownership, or benefit of doubt, fucking NOTHING. They get just what they need to render a service. That’s it.

If Google does not like that they are to serve, and instead Google’s managers have aristocratic ambitions, we need to talk.

I disagree that we need to find mismanagement first.

Never mind that Google is 100% opaque from outside and is not subject to inspections by its users.

Even if Google had an open door policy inviting and empowering any and all citizen auditors, I would still disagree that Google gets the benefit of doubt by default, and only after something blows up can we begin asserting our interests.

I think we can assert our interests any time, for any reason, and for no reason at all, with arbitrary aggressiveness, limited only by our own practical considerations.

Instead of waiting for things to go wrong, we can protect our interests before there is even a chance of things going wrong.

Can.

Will we? Each person has to consider their situation pragmatically, but if they considered everything and decided to assert themselves, we would be idiots to insist Google gets the first dibs, they have the initiative, and so how dare we want to limit Google in any way without first PROVING harm. Horse. Shit.

I take the same view toward any monopolies in general. We should not bother proving harm. We should break all monopolies as a matter of principle, even if they are “harmless.”

And Google shound be given as close to zero information as possible. As a matter of principle.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.