I’m not saying that I agree with the theory, but the idea behind the case is thatit is illegal for companies to collude in ways that are anti-competitive. Calling for boycotts is fine, because anyone can choose to do it or not. But if a few businesses agree, even informally or tacitly, to blackball another business entiry, it at least raises the issue of whether it’s an agreement to restrain trade. I think it’s a poor argument, because I dont see the anticompetitive effect here, but in general collusive activity, if it can be shown to exist (and normally its very hard to do so), can raise courts eyebrows. In general thiw case strikes me as a silly move, but we will see.

I am the market

What’s a solution to cookie banners?

The obvious answer is to simply not have them, but this gets you to square one.

The next option might be to have browser-wide settings that communicate to websites that you have not opted into marketing / creepy cookies. This could be default opt out - which will obviously hurt the marketing industry but would provide significant benefits to people. Opting in would need to be incentivized.

As a middle ground, the law could be modified to allow only the necessary cookies for website functionality. The law would need to be very specific about what counts as necessary (nothing that tracks and shares).

This would eliminate the need for banners while preserving some privacy.

Thoughts? nostr:note1gvfda7a5t7nn9nffqg00wsj3dpseetzqlwtumuq40c0q2kjv040shwddzf

Last week major brokerage pushed massive liquidations ahead of the retail market. Today the retail market investors wake up to suspended trading and "outages". Tell me again how wall street isn't run by scammers.

Can someone name an investment that isn't speculative?

Like what do people even mean when they say "Bitcoin is speculative?"

If a company earns income and you buy their stock, are you not speculating that this income will continue?

Just what I like to hear before going to sleep 😂

Dunno, got a sudden feeling of “otherwise”