I don't disagree with there being a liberal bias in SV companies, I think that's pretty damn obvious.
I'm curious though why such observations are made for SV only, why don't publicly social conservative organizations e.g Hobby Lobby, Chic-fil-a etc get asked similar questions? It would be safe to assume that things like same sex marriage, contraception would be considered out of bounds there.
Is it just because of the size/reach of the tech industry ?
Well no one is forced used SV services, people are free not to use them. Also my point was not from a consumer standpoint but more from an employee/media standpoint.
* 55957 comments with "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. ..."
* 13649 comments with: "I was outraged by the Obama/Wheeler FCC's decision to reclassify the Internet as a regulated \"public utility\" under a Depression-era law written for the old Ma Bell telephone monopoly. ..."
There are a bunch of repeated pro net neutrality comments, but they tend to be variances of "I support strong net neutrality backed by Title II oversight of ISPs."
There are 263512 unique comments, and 14859 comments repeated twice, 4318 comments repeated thrice.
Robinhood is SPIC insured upto $250,000. So you can get upto 250,000 worth of securities value back if company goes under.
Scroll down on the link https://www.robinhood.com/
While that might be true for some organizations, it is not 'the' issue. Most mergers and consolidations that have the potential to be most damaging aren't necessarily global businesses. e.g ISP's consolidating, Health Insurance companies in the US.
And I'd argue even companies that have a global presence, example US airlines, might benefit from consolidation but it does harm their local market, in this case US domestic travellers since they inevitably end up paying more due to a lack of choice.
Honest question: How can we help companies here "playing by the rules" in a global field against (in your airport example) entities like heavily subsidized UAE airlines, when they are essentially capped in some ways like this?
Now my "opinion" section WRT the above: If preventing consolidation and economies of scale forces airlines to other avenues such as sardine can planes, deceptive ticketing (economy levels that just take away things at the same price to push upselling), and govt protectionism (potentially exemplified by the laptop bans to some arab countries recently), is this the route we want to take? I don't have fantastic suggestions outside of "treat air as part of a US infrastructure which drastically needs govt. investment" so thus my question 1. (since I neither see my pipe-dream of infra commitment coming to pass, nor am completely sold on routing tax dollars to private corps, even if it would be an improvement on where they're being routed now. Perhaps build/maintain airports and infrastructure and be a "common carrier" of hardware that the companies simply rent? (I recognize states do this now, but I also know the level of infrastructure funding my state has available, and even intact roads are a fantasy.))
I'll admit there is no perfect solution to issues like these. We mostly don't want government to pick winners or losers, but being completely free market based and no monopoly protections is great for companies since it is a race to the bottom line and they get to go to town on consumers with an array of fees in the airline context. I don't think preventing consolidation however results in any of those things that you mentioned, airlines are free to do what they want and what the market will let them. I'd recommend reading that article since I feel like we are not on the same page when we talk about 'playing by the rules' airlines. +1 on infra investment though.
At $95 per month, it actually works out to be cheaper to just get this for coffee alone,rather than spending money at Starbucks. Assuming of course one buys coffee everyday.
Cool idea though, helps entrepreneurs and local establishments.
More information here: https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/26/moviepass-pulls-out-of-amc...
The article makes it sound like Moviepass now has more leverage than the theatres themselves, which is super interesting.