Go ahead and tell those big corpos to stop being anti social, I’m sure that’ll secure the funding and commitments necessary industry-wide

We are literally trying to pass a law to force them.

common OS standards

By OS, did you perhaps mean open or open-source?

Because it seems most people understood it as operating system.

I am talking about the video hypothetical. Trying to destroy a game only to profit off the released server.

it cannot be wrong to have monetary interest in your product

There is nothing wrong with making money off the games you make. But once you are done doing that, you shouldn’t be allowed to just wipe the thing people paid you for.

Because it would almost certainly not happen in reality. The server being released means everyone could spin up one for free. You wouldn’t be able to monetize it to any significant degree.

If you want to be generous toward Thor, he is a security expert trained to focus on any hypothetical risks, however unlikely. If you don’t, he is a game developer with monetary interest in this not passing and vast experience conning people.

You can abuse studios right now. This would not change that. It would not make maintenance risky or more expensive.

It provides an extremely theoretical motive for people to do the abuse, that is unlikely to materialize in reality.

And if you want to be theoretical, it removes ideological reasons for abuse. Right now, if you dislike an online game, and got the studio shut down, the game would be gone. With this initiative, it would survive removing the motivation to try in the first place.

Right, so let’s burn all the money. Everyone will just work and help each other from the goodness of their hearts.

I can’t argue points this absurd. We obviously don’t share the same perception of reality, so I am done here.

Goodbeye.

They wouldn’t agree that a company’s market share should directly translate into compensation for individuals, because it has “intrinsic value”.

It doesn’t have intrinsic value. At least not the same as its market cap. I use it as an (imperfect) approximation for the value a company creates by providing goods or services.

Personally, I’d argue “intrinsic value” is subjective bullshit as we people are the harbingers of meaning and in turn value

If you don’t think goods and services have intrinsic value, what is the point complaining about wages? Money is tied to the value of goods you can exchange it for. So if value of goods is subjective, then so is value of money. Therefore, fair wages are subjective and there is no way to compensate people fairly.

exactly. A company tant doesnt overexplore its workers cannot grow like alphabet did

No, alphabet has always made most of its money from their ad business, supported by search. Most of their other efforts, including YouTube were never profitable or insignificantly profitable. If they did not over-explore, they would create even more value per employee by not wasting resources. Maybe even more value in absolute terms.

The idea of one being multiple times more valuable due to their market is in direct conflict with the idea of “a person can only make so much”.

Yeah, I am arguing against their belief by showing a contradiction with an obvious truths such as that things have intrinsic value and people can increase said value by much more than others. That is what arguing is. If you think disagreeing with people is straw-maning them, then there is no point for me to waste my time with you.

Would that market cap be so high if all those employees were paid that extra million yearly?

Yes, that is what I meant by simplification.

On the other hand Google as search engine and ads (the part that makes money) needs fraction of the employees alphabet has. If they had to pay them that much, they would have never hired most of them.

That massively depends on what you consider fair.

Is a million dollars a year fair?

Alphabet (google parent), based on employee numbers had about 1,550,000 man years of work put into it in its entire history 1.

Alphabets current market capitalization is 2.5 trillion dollars.

If each employee was paid an extra million $ yearly in addition to what they were already paid (excluding stocks), there would still be almost a trillion dollars left over for the founders and investors.

Now sure, I had to make a lot of simplifications to calculate this, but even so, it should give you an idea just how valuable Google actually is, compared to the amount of work put into it.

So unless your definition of fair is something along the lines of splitting the profits evenly among employees, then they absolutely could have become billionaires while paying people fairly.

They said that it takes a lot more than the sweat of literally only 2 people to make Google. And “No one has ever…made a billon dollars by…their effort alone.”.

I am not arguing they made a billion alone, I am arguing their work increased the value of Google by billions (which IMO makes them deserve some percentage of the billions).

If all the support staff went to do the exact same work for a average different company, the product/value of that company would be less than Googles by over a billion. I used Bing as a comparable example.

Billionaires cannot possibly create added value to account for their wealth

Also, you accuse me of straw-maning while straw-maning yourself? What is this, Donald Trump debate club?

Are you really gonna be pedantic about me using the word “good” one time?

The title of the post is “The only good billionaire”. You seriously expect anyone to believe that was a slip of the tongue and not denial of the title?

You are a living meme, and I mean that in the worst possible connotation.

What do you expect? You guys are regurgitating quotes and theories with so many holes the Marvel movies are more believable. Of course the only reason I reply is to watch you rage, struggle to come up with excuses or desperately try to change the topic when I call out your nonsense. Bonus if it ever helps some lemming not to fall to this brain rot.

Want a genuine constructive good faith discussion? How about instead of regurgitating anticapitalist quotes, you post something worth discussing seriously. For example a plan for a fair system that does not fall apart as soon as some people act greedily and selfishly, like they always do. Or at least an outline of one, that we can work on to refine. Or you know, if you can’t come up with a whole new system, how to improve the current one.

Until then, you and lemmings like you are my comedic relief.

Huh, I misunderstood that word for quite a while. Fixed it now. Thanks.

Which is irrelevant when discussing the morality of a person who bridged that divide by giving his wealth away.

Google what straw man argument is. I am asking a question.

There are two types of employees in google. The ones who created the search engine SW and the support staff. He claims the creators of the SW are not the people who created billions in Value, so it must be the support staff. The support staff that does more or less the same kind of work as support staff in all other tech companies, yet Google is wastly more profitable per employee, so these support staff somehow create much more value by doing the exact same thing. So who exactly is creating the Value?

No, you claimed

It still would have been better if workers got the money in the first place. There are no good billionaires.

Claiming this specific billionaire is not good either. Now you are trying to switch the topic to a systemic issue when your self-serving claim was called out.

The very valuable company isn’t run by just those two people. That’s the point. No one has ever made anything or worked so hard they made a billion dollars by their effort and their effort alone.

So you think that the same people doing the exact same work (marketing, sales, etc.) produce 10x more value if you put google logo on them vs Bing? Because the companies can be run in the exact same way with the core sw being the only differentiator.

What about a janitor. Is his cleaning the floors 10x more valuable if the building has Google logo on it compared to Bing?

each of the other nodes of the chain is equally as important.

So do you believe that if I have two quality assurance people doing exactly the same procedure, if first checks Nokias and the second checks iPhones, the exact same work of the second one is 10 times as valuable, just because he works on iPhones?

What about a baseball player signing a ball and changing its value from few $ to 10s of thousands. Is he stealing the wages of the people that made the ball if he doesn’t trace back the people who made the ball and share portion of the money?

In case of google, if it is not the founders who made the valuable part, the same marketing and other support people doing the exact same thing generated 10x the value than their colleagues at Bing? What about the janitor? Is his floor cleaning producing 10x the value if the building has Google logo on it instead of Bing?

What about people making parts like screws? Does the value of a screw retroactively change based on whether you put it into a Nokia or an iPhone, or an Alibaba alarm clock?

again, the www is founded on the work of uncountably many people. the person credited is usually the one at the end of the chain of production.

Ok, so how does this work? Group of people makes a computer, that is used for accounting at CERN. They take equal part of the Value created by the accounting, split with the actual accountants. But then a researcher creates www. The computer was suddenly worth much more and they should retroactively get more money? What about the accounting Value? Do they have to return money to accountants because their computer was used for www and since it was used for multiple things, the share of accounting Value they took originally was too high?