>>...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.

user:	yc_2345
created:	December 2, 2019
karma:	6