Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.

What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.

Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.

Download on the App Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

Non Apple App Stores Coming

1…457910

Comments

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited December 2022

    @ervin said:

    @michael_m said:

    @wim said:

    @ervin said:

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:
    Meanwhile, the incorrigible EU moves yet another step closer to "living in Russia or China" by forcing Amazon to give up some of its most egregious anticompetitive practices:

    We're doomed.

    What were/are these alleged “anticompetitive practices”?

    In my non-legal wording: they cheat with the recommendation box algorithms and use the non-public information they obtain as a platform where other vendors sell their stuff in order to promote their own stuff and squeeze said other vendors out. They exploit their position as a dominant platform to unfairly push their own products. (Not wholly unlike what Microsoft did with its browser back when, although in a more refined way.)

    Remarkably, Amazon agreed to stop these practices in the EU. I think they are still free to do all these things in the US, so no danger of becoming China or Russia there. 👍

    So there's the difference in thinking again. To me the cheating is obvious and therefore I completely ignore the "Amazon Recommends" and Sponsored markings and drill into the details. I prefer to use my own brain and common sense than to have a government step in to protect me from being naive.

    I totally get where you're coming from though, and can see why you feel it's an important protection.

    I will admit that some things that I appreciate a lot now, such as forcing the listing of ingredients and nutritional value on products, would never have happened without government mandates.

    What Amazon is doing is pretty obvious to anyone who gives adequate thought to such things when buying online, but I’m sure there are many buyers who don’t think about it at all.

    Whether or not consumers are getting a bad deal from this is probably not the issue though. It’s more likely protection is for the mom and pop stores who lose business rather than consumers. Amazon has put enough of them out of business already, so anything that helps prevent more of them going under is probably a good thing.

    Yes, this is true.

    Also, it's not even mainly about customers being smart or not. In the background, there's much more to what Amazon is doing than meets even @wim 's watchful eyes 🙂.

    Basically, they know everything about their competitors: exactly which of their products are selling well, which of their promotions work, they know everything about their stocking levels, replacement levels etc.

    Imagine having to compete with a much bigger company who has complete information about everything you do, has full access to your entire business experience for free, and also owns and manipulates the store to boot. That's what the EU stopped here. 🤷

    Walmart, Target, basically every retailer which stocks and sells product they don't make themselves has access to this very same data. It's why there are store brand versions of the "famous name" brands also in stores. This is not something new or unique to Amazon.

  • ervinervin

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:
    Meanwhile, the incorrigible EU moves yet another step closer to "living in Russia or China" by forcing Amazon to give up some of its most egregious anticompetitive practices:

    We're doomed.

    What were/are these alleged “anticompetitive practices”?

    In my non-legal wording: they cheat with the recommendation box algorithms and use the non-public information they obtain as a platform where other vendors sell their stuff in order to promote their own stuff and squeeze said other vendors out. They exploit their position as a dominant platform to unfairly push their own products. (Not wholly unlike what Microsoft did with its browser back when, although in a more refined way.)

    Remarkably, Amazon agreed to stop these practices in the EU. I think they are still free to do all these things in the US, so no danger of becoming China or Russia there. 👍

    All of those practices are identical to how Walmart does business. It’s not an unfair business practice when participation is voluntary. If Amazon was the ONLY way a vendor could sell their goods, that would be a different matter. But they’re not the only way to sell. In fact, their market dominance (if this is even an accurate statement) would be due to customer preference, not because of shady business dealings.

    I think you are mixing up categories.

    If Amazon was the only way to sell stuff, that would be a monopoly, not just a dominant player. A completely different thing than what we have here, and it would require a completely different approach from the authorities.

    On the other hand, dominance does not imply forced participation of others. Even legitimate, voluntary customer preferences can and sometimes do lead to a situation that needs regulation. In fact, I would agree this is what happened to Amazon. At some point, they started to use that fairly gained advantage in unfair ways.

    I think we can safely say that the fact that other companies do the same thing in the US is rather irrelevant for a purely European case like this. In the EU, Walmart would be caught out, too.

    "Dominance" is what happens when a business delivers what customers want. The very idea that there should be no winner (or winners) in a competitive world is absolutely insane and the EU is just creating a system that continually punishes the best.

    We clearly see things fundamentally differently. I disagree with all three parts of this comment.

    On a positive note, it seems to be life's great gift to both of us that we both live where we clearly do prefer living, so there's that to appreciate. 👍

  • NeuMNeuM

    @ervin said:

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:
    Meanwhile, the incorrigible EU moves yet another step closer to "living in Russia or China" by forcing Amazon to give up some of its most egregious anticompetitive practices:

    We're doomed.

    What were/are these alleged “anticompetitive practices”?

    In my non-legal wording: they cheat with the recommendation box algorithms and use the non-public information they obtain as a platform where other vendors sell their stuff in order to promote their own stuff and squeeze said other vendors out. They exploit their position as a dominant platform to unfairly push their own products. (Not wholly unlike what Microsoft did with its browser back when, although in a more refined way.)

    Remarkably, Amazon agreed to stop these practices in the EU. I think they are still free to do all these things in the US, so no danger of becoming China or Russia there. 👍

    All of those practices are identical to how Walmart does business. It’s not an unfair business practice when participation is voluntary. If Amazon was the ONLY way a vendor could sell their goods, that would be a different matter. But they’re not the only way to sell. In fact, their market dominance (if this is even an accurate statement) would be due to customer preference, not because of shady business dealings.

    I think you are mixing up categories.

    If Amazon was the only way to sell stuff, that would be a monopoly, not just a dominant player. A completely different thing than what we have here, and it would require a completely different approach from the authorities.

    On the other hand, dominance does not imply forced participation of others. Even legitimate, voluntary customer preferences can and sometimes do lead to a situation that needs regulation. In fact, I would agree this is what happened to Amazon. At some point, they started to use that fairly gained advantage in unfair ways.

    I think we can safely say that the fact that other companies do the same thing in the US is rather irrelevant for a purely European case like this. In the EU, Walmart would be caught out, too.

    "Dominance" is what happens when a business delivers what customers want. The very idea that there should be no winner (or winners) in a competitive world is absolutely insane and the EU is just creating a system that continually punishes the best.

    We clearly see things fundamentally differently. I disagree with all three parts of this comment.

    On a positive note, it seems to be life's great gift to both of us that we both live where we clearly do prefer living, so there's that to appreciate. 👍

    It's OK to disagree. If you believe life in Europe has been improved by the nanny-state market interference of the EU dictating things which customers should instead be deciding, then Merry Christmas to you and a very Happy New Year. :)

  • ervinervin

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:
    Meanwhile, the incorrigible EU moves yet another step closer to "living in Russia or China" by forcing Amazon to give up some of its most egregious anticompetitive practices:

    We're doomed.

    What were/are these alleged “anticompetitive practices”?

    In my non-legal wording: they cheat with the recommendation box algorithms and use the non-public information they obtain as a platform where other vendors sell their stuff in order to promote their own stuff and squeeze said other vendors out. They exploit their position as a dominant platform to unfairly push their own products. (Not wholly unlike what Microsoft did with its browser back when, although in a more refined way.)

    Remarkably, Amazon agreed to stop these practices in the EU. I think they are still free to do all these things in the US, so no danger of becoming China or Russia there. 👍

    All of those practices are identical to how Walmart does business. It’s not an unfair business practice when participation is voluntary. If Amazon was the ONLY way a vendor could sell their goods, that would be a different matter. But they’re not the only way to sell. In fact, their market dominance (if this is even an accurate statement) would be due to customer preference, not because of shady business dealings.

    I think you are mixing up categories.

    If Amazon was the only way to sell stuff, that would be a monopoly, not just a dominant player. A completely different thing than what we have here, and it would require a completely different approach from the authorities.

    On the other hand, dominance does not imply forced participation of others. Even legitimate, voluntary customer preferences can and sometimes do lead to a situation that needs regulation. In fact, I would agree this is what happened to Amazon. At some point, they started to use that fairly gained advantage in unfair ways.

    I think we can safely say that the fact that other companies do the same thing in the US is rather irrelevant for a purely European case like this. In the EU, Walmart would be caught out, too.

    "Dominance" is what happens when a business delivers what customers want. The very idea that there should be no winner (or winners) in a competitive world is absolutely insane and the EU is just creating a system that continually punishes the best.

    We clearly see things fundamentally differently. I disagree with all three parts of this comment.

    On a positive note, it seems to be life's great gift to both of us that we both live where we clearly do prefer living, so there's that to appreciate. 👍

    It's OK to disagree. If you believe life in Europe has been improved by the nanny-state market interference of the EU dictating things which customers should instead be deciding, then Merry Christmas to you and a very Happy New Year. :)

    Seriously? 😀 That's painfully cheap, man. Not even worth the obvious retorts, which would be similarly low. Instead, thank you for the engagement and best wishes for a nice holiday season to you as well.

  • KrupaKrupa

    ‘Tough guys’ with thin skins, story of the age…

  • NeuMNeuM

    @Krupa said:
    ‘Tough guys’ with thin skins, story of the age…

    Has nothing to do with being "tough", it's about what one believes is the proper limited role of government.

  • KrupaKrupa

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:
    ‘Tough guys’ with thin skins, story of the age…

    Has nothing to do with being "tough", it's about what one believes is the proper limited role of government.

    So why the use of derogatory language that implies that those who think other than you are somehow infantile? Grow up dude.

  • CRAKROXCRAKROX

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:
    ‘Tough guys’ with thin skins, story of the age…

    Has nothing to do with being "tough", it's about what one believes is the proper limited role of government.

    So why the use of derogatory language that implies that those who think other than you are somehow infantile? Grow up dude.

    He’s been at it for ages, I’m surprised people still engage with him.

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited December 2022

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:
    ‘Tough guys’ with thin skins, story of the age…

    Has nothing to do with being "tough", it's about what one believes is the proper limited role of government.

    So why the use of derogatory language that implies that those who think other than you are somehow infantile? Grow up dude.

    The “nanny-state” is a phrase from Britain which describes overreaching government. I did not invent that phrase and it was not a criticism of Ervin, it was a criticism of government overreach.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state

    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you also.

  • wimwim
    edited December 2022

    @ervin said:
    Basically, they know everything about their competitors: exactly which of their products are selling well, which of their promotions work, they know everything about their stocking levels, replacement levels etc.

    Imagine having to compete with a much bigger company who has complete information about everything you do, has full access to your entire business experience for free, and also owns and manipulates the store to boot. That's what the EU stopped here. 🤷

    Those are very valid points. I helped set my last employer up to do business on Amazon. The data they have on everyone's markets and business is indeed a bit scary. We reaped benefits from it ourselves, but the ability to abuse that is indeed there and of course would be exploited without some kind of counter-balance.

  • michael_mmichael_m

    @wim said:

    @ervin said:
    Basically, they know everything about their competitors: exactly which of their products are selling well, which of their promotions work, they know everything about their stocking levels, replacement levels etc.

    Imagine having to compete with a much bigger company who has complete information about everything you do, has full access to your entire business experience for free, and also owns and manipulates the store to boot. That's what the EU stopped here. 🤷

    Those are very valid points. I helped set my last employer up to do business on Amazon. The data they have on everyone's markets and business is indeed a bit scary. We reaped benefits from it ourselves, but the ability to abuse that is indeed there and of course would be exploited without some kind of counter-balance.

    The larger the corporation, the more they do it. I worked for a large corporation some years ago that even went to the extent of hiring ‘secret shoppers’ to get insight into smaller companies that competed in the same local market as them. These people had no intention of buying, they just sniffed out all information they could get so that the large corporation could increase their share of that market.

  • wimwim
    edited December 2022

    @michael_m said:

    @wim said:

    @ervin said:
    Basically, they know everything about their competitors: exactly which of their products are selling well, which of their promotions work, they know everything about their stocking levels, replacement levels etc.

    Imagine having to compete with a much bigger company who has complete information about everything you do, has full access to your entire business experience for free, and also owns and manipulates the store to boot. That's what the EU stopped here. 🤷

    Those are very valid points. I helped set my last employer up to do business on Amazon. The data they have on everyone's markets and business is indeed a bit scary. We reaped benefits from it ourselves, but the ability to abuse that is indeed there and of course would be exploited without some kind of counter-balance.

    The larger the corporation, the more they do it. I worked for a large corporation some years ago that even went to the extent of hiring ‘secret shoppers’ to get insight into smaller companies that competed in the same local market as them. These people had no intention of buying, they just sniffed out all information they could get so that the large corporation could increase their share of that market.

    I see nothing unethical in that. That is just active market research. Now, if the company paid employees of the competitor to divulge insider information, that would be another matter. That type of corporate espionage does happen. But what you mentioned isn't on that level at all.

    In Amazon's case, if true, using data entrusted to your care in order to compete against those that have entrusted it to you is clearly unethical.

  • michael_mmichael_m

    @wim said:

    @michael_m said:

    @wim said:

    @ervin said:
    Basically, they know everything about their competitors: exactly which of their products are selling well, which of their promotions work, they know everything about their stocking levels, replacement levels etc.

    Imagine having to compete with a much bigger company who has complete information about everything you do, has full access to your entire business experience for free, and also owns and manipulates the store to boot. That's what the EU stopped here. 🤷

    Those are very valid points. I helped set my last employer up to do business on Amazon. The data they have on everyone's markets and business is indeed a bit scary. We reaped benefits from it ourselves, but the ability to abuse that is indeed there and of course would be exploited without some kind of counter-balance.

    The larger the corporation, the more they do it. I worked for a large corporation some years ago that even went to the extent of hiring ‘secret shoppers’ to get insight into smaller companies that competed in the same local market as them. These people had no intention of buying, they just sniffed out all information they could get so that the large corporation could increase their share of that market.

    I see nothing unethical in that. That is just active market research. Now, if the company paid employees of the competitor to divulge insider information, that would be another matter. That type of corporate espionage does happen. But what you mentioned isn't on that level at all.

    In Amazon's case, if true, using data entrusted to your care in order to compete against those that have entrusted it to you is clearly unethical.

    It’s not unethical to use secret shoppers, but it was ultimately an exercise in putting competitors out of business as a large corporation can afford to lose money while it undercuts smaller competitors until they go out of business.

  • KrupaKrupa

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:
    ‘Tough guys’ with thin skins, story of the age…

    Has nothing to do with being "tough", it's about what one believes is the proper limited role of government.

    So why the use of derogatory language that implies that those who think other than you are somehow infantile? Grow up dude.

    The “nanny-state” is a phrase from Britain which describes overreaching government. I did not invent that phrase and it was not a criticism of Ervin, it was a criticism of government overreach.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state

    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you also.

    Seasons greetings to you also.

    Perhaps you don’t understand the implications of the phrase. I’m from Britain so understand exactly why it is used. It’s a deliberate use of imagery to belittle someone who believes that government can be used for good, generally used by weak minded folks (see Jacob Rees mogg for a perfect example), who’ve run out of rational debate and want to give the impression that they and others who ‘aren’t children ’ don’t need that common good in their lives but those that do are infantile and therefore weak. I hope that cultural understanding helps you in future.

    I made my statement as I was disappointed that after what seemed like a warm ending to an unresolved debate, but with common understanding of the difference of each other’s opinions you waded back in with it in what appeared to be a last little dig at the opposing view. Like I say, seasons greetings 🖖

  • NeuMNeuM

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:
    ‘Tough guys’ with thin skins, story of the age…

    Has nothing to do with being "tough", it's about what one believes is the proper limited role of government.

    So why the use of derogatory language that implies that those who think other than you are somehow infantile? Grow up dude.

    The “nanny-state” is a phrase from Britain which describes overreaching government. I did not invent that phrase and it was not a criticism of Ervin, it was a criticism of government overreach.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state

    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you also.

    Seasons greetings to you also.

    Perhaps you don’t understand the implications of the phrase. I’m from Britain so understand exactly why it is used. It’s a deliberate use of imagery to belittle someone who believes that government can be used for good, generally used by weak minded folks (see Jacob Rees mogg for a perfect example), who’ve run out of rational debate and want to give the impression that they and others who ‘aren’t children ’ don’t need that common good in their lives but those that do are infantile and therefore weak. I hope that cultural understanding helps you in future.

    I made my statement as I was disappointed that after what seemed like a warm ending to an unresolved debate, but with common understanding of the difference of each other’s opinions you waded back in with it in what appeared to be a last little dig at the opposing view. Like I say, seasons greetings 🖖

    Thank you for the season's greetings.

    I know nothing of Jacob Rees-Mogg, but I do know his father wrote co-wrote an excellent book, "The Sovereign Individual".

    I noted with some amusement the framing of people who use the phrase "nanny state" as people who belittle others, only to be immediately followed by the accusation that such people must be "weak-minded".

    Good evening.

  • KrupaKrupa
    edited December 2022

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:
    ‘Tough guys’ with thin skins, story of the age…

    Has nothing to do with being "tough", it's about what one believes is the proper limited role of government.

    So why the use of derogatory language that implies that those who think other than you are somehow infantile? Grow up dude.

    The “nanny-state” is a phrase from Britain which describes overreaching government. I did not invent that phrase and it was not a criticism of Ervin, it was a criticism of government overreach.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state

    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you also.

    Seasons greetings to you also.

    Perhaps you don’t understand the implications of the phrase. I’m from Britain so understand exactly why it is used. It’s a deliberate use of imagery to belittle someone who believes that government can be used for good, generally used by weak minded folks (see Jacob Rees mogg for a perfect example), who’ve run out of rational debate and want to give the impression that they and others who ‘aren’t children ’ don’t need that common good in their lives but those that do are infantile and therefore weak. I hope that cultural understanding helps you in future.

    I made my statement as I was disappointed that after what seemed like a warm ending to an unresolved debate, but with common understanding of the difference of each other’s opinions you waded back in with it in what appeared to be a last little dig at the opposing view. Like I say, seasons greetings 🖖

    Thank you for the season's greetings.

    I know nothing of Jacob Rees-Mogg, but I do know his father wrote co-wrote an excellent book, "The Sovereign Individual".

    I noted with some amusement the framing of people who use the phrase "nanny state" as people who belittle others, only to be immediately followed by the accusation that such people must be "weak-minded".

    Good evening.

    Good morning.

    are the Mogg, you should try to understand the phrase ‘born on third base, think they’ve scored a home run’ in terms of both the father and son of that family, I’m not American but the meaning of the analogy is quite clear to me.

    It’s nice that you’re amused by my own hypocrisy, but the fact stands that you at once offer warm regards while tossing hand grenades on your way out of the door. That to me suggests something of the nature of how you see debate, and it’s not easy to respond with kindness and understanding to that. As I said, it was disappointment at seeing that re-emerge after the previous warm conclusion to the debate, and the warm glow of feeling that you were at least capable of that level of understanding was destroyed.

  • NeuMNeuM

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:
    ‘Tough guys’ with thin skins, story of the age…

    Has nothing to do with being "tough", it's about what one believes is the proper limited role of government.

    So why the use of derogatory language that implies that those who think other than you are somehow infantile? Grow up dude.

    The “nanny-state” is a phrase from Britain which describes overreaching government. I did not invent that phrase and it was not a criticism of Ervin, it was a criticism of government overreach.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state

    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you also.

    Seasons greetings to you also.

    Perhaps you don’t understand the implications of the phrase. I’m from Britain so understand exactly why it is used. It’s a deliberate use of imagery to belittle someone who believes that government can be used for good, generally used by weak minded folks (see Jacob Rees mogg for a perfect example), who’ve run out of rational debate and want to give the impression that they and others who ‘aren’t children ’ don’t need that common good in their lives but those that do are infantile and therefore weak. I hope that cultural understanding helps you in future.

    I made my statement as I was disappointed that after what seemed like a warm ending to an unresolved debate, but with common understanding of the difference of each other’s opinions you waded back in with it in what appeared to be a last little dig at the opposing view. Like I say, seasons greetings 🖖

    Thank you for the season's greetings.

    I know nothing of Jacob Rees-Mogg, but I do know his father wrote co-wrote an excellent book, "The Sovereign Individual".

    I noted with some amusement the framing of people who use the phrase "nanny state" as people who belittle others, only to be immediately followed by the accusation that such people must be "weak-minded".

    Good evening.

    Good morning.

    are the Mogg, you should try to understand the phrase ‘born on third base, think they’ve scored a home run’ in terms of both the father and son of that family, I’m not American but the meaning of the analogy is quite clear to me.

    It’s nice that you’re amused by my own hypocrisy, but the fact stands that you at once offer warm regards while tossing hand grenades on your way out of the door. That to me suggests something of the nature of how you see debate, and it’s not easy to respond with kindness and understanding to that. As I said, it was disappointment at seeing that re-emerge after the previous warm conclusion to the debate, and the warm glow of feeling that you were at least capable of that level of understanding was destroyed.

    In the spirit of the season, I am more than happy to yield on further discussion and simply wish you the warmest of wishes. All the best.

  • GavinskiGavinski

    I've never seen so many begrudging / passive aggressive 'seasons greetings' in the space of so few paragraphs, gave me a right giggle 😂 🤭

  • tahichetahiche
    edited December 2022

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:
    Meanwhile, the incorrigible EU moves yet another step closer to "living in Russia or China" by forcing Amazon to give up some of its most egregious anticompetitive practices:

    We're doomed.

    What were/are these alleged “anticompetitive practices”?

    In my non-legal wording: they cheat with the recommendation box algorithms and use the non-public information they obtain as a platform where other vendors sell their stuff in order to promote their own stuff and squeeze said other vendors out. They exploit their position as a dominant platform to unfairly push their own products. (Not wholly unlike what Microsoft did with its browser back when, although in a more refined way.)

    Remarkably, Amazon agreed to stop these practices in the EU. I think they are still free to do all these things in the US, so no danger of becoming China or Russia there. 👍

    All of those practices are identical to how Walmart does business. It’s not an unfair business practice when participation is voluntary. If Amazon was the ONLY way a vendor could sell their goods, that would be a different matter. But they’re not the only way to sell. In fact, their market dominance (if this is even an accurate statement) would be due to customer preference, not because of shady business dealings.

    I think you are mixing up categories.

    If Amazon was the only way to sell stuff, that would be a monopoly, not just a dominant player. A completely different thing than what we have here, and it would require a completely different approach from the authorities.

    On the other hand, dominance does not imply forced participation of others. Even legitimate, voluntary customer preferences can and sometimes do lead to a situation that needs regulation. In fact, I would agree this is what happened to Amazon. At some point, they started to use that fairly gained advantage in unfair ways.

    I think we can safely say that the fact that other companies do the same thing in the US is rather irrelevant for a purely European case like this. In the EU, Walmart would be caught out, too.

    "Dominance" is what happens when a business delivers what customers want. The very idea that there should be no winner (or winners) in a competitive world is absolutely insane and the EU is just creating a system that continually punishes the best.

    We clearly see things fundamentally differently. I disagree with all three parts of this comment.

    On a positive note, it seems to be life's great gift to both of us that we both live where we clearly do prefer living, so there's that to appreciate. 👍

    It's OK to disagree. If you believe life in Europe has been improved by the nanny-state market interference of the EU dictating things which customers should instead be deciding, then Merry Christmas to you and a very Happy New Year. :)

    Nanny takes you to a nice public school and to a very professional doctor if you get sick. I love nanny, very grateful to have her.
    And yes, customers also need a nanny, definitely. To make sure they can choose freely, that there are options and that potential abuse is taken care of.
    Nanny wishes you a happy Christmas.

  • SimonSimon

    @tahiche said:
    Nanny takes you to a nice public school and to a very professional doctor if you get sick.

    Does the EU pays your school fees and medical bills? I think you are getting your nannies mixed up :smiley:

  • krassmannkrassmann

    The nanny state. Well, I think we all agree that a game with competing players needs rules. Imagine a football game without rules and no referee to enforce them. It would be chaos or even anarchy. In my opinion the role of the state in this regard is to make and enforce the rules that ensure a fair competition, that enable consumers to make qualified choices and laws that ensure fulfillment of contracts or being refunded, etc. But we clearly have different opinions on how much these rules may interfere with the freedom of the players. Obviously different countries have different takes on that and I think it’s a good thing that there are competing approaches.

    Personally I‘m in favor of rules that limit how much a dominant player can use it’s influence on the market to keep competitors small. But I agree that there is a very thin line where protection of competition against unfair practices ends and harmful interference into innovation begins.

    I’m glad @NeuM mentioned „The sovereign individual“. That is a truly shocking but also ground breaking book that in the late 90s pretty much predicted what actually is unfolding today. It has a clearly ultra market liberal political background. I have a different vision but I must admit that the authors (e.g. Reese-Mogg) made the right conclusions and I didn’t. In the late 90s I was enthusiastic about the internet. Everyone can be a publisher and no opinion can ever be suppressed. I was convinced it was the breakthrough for democracy and freedom of speech. Free information access and education for everyone. I was sure this would evolve democracy to the next level with well informed citizens that can make qualified decisions, paving the way to more direct democracy. But the book made other conclusions. They predicted digital currency, the gig economy, internet bubbles and identified this as the true game changers that are actually the breakthrough for the individual sovereignty over government rule and a normative mainstream. The conclusion of the book is that all this leads inevitably to the end of democracy as we know it.

    Virtually all of their predictions became true and I believe their conclusion might not be wrong either. Now we have hate speech and internet bubbles where even the most absurd theories are seen as the truth by their followers. If someone would have told me about flat-earthers back in the 90s, I would not have believed it. People only know what is published inside of their bubble. Crypto eroding state control over money. The gig economy being the big reset of worker rights. The internet paving the way for the wet dream of ultra libertarians. The full removal of regulations and finally the “twilight of democracy”. For me this is absolutely horror show.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sovereign_Individual

    Sorry for the lengthy post but I find this a very important topic to think about. I wish all of you a merry Christmas without dystopian thoughts.

  • SimonSimon
    edited December 2022

    @krassmann said:
    Sorry for the lengthy post but I find this a very important topic to think about.

    No, that was a good post.

    The interesting thing to me is that you have presented a so-called "lefties" point of view outlining how horrible things are and will get in the future.

    And what is more interesting is that the so-called "right wingers" have their own nightmare vision of how bad things are now and will be in the near future.

    Both sides are very concerned about where we are and where we are going. Neither side thinks they have the upper hand. In fact, both sides are convinced that we are doomed because the evil "other side" is winning.

    There is a kind of "concensus of negativity", but for totally different reasons.

    Does the net and social media just make everyone anxious and negative?

  • wimwim
    edited December 2022

    Great post @Simon - so very true.

    I've watched this happening from both sides during the past 12 years of USA politics. Each side has been in total panic that the world will end because the other side won an election. It hasn't ended. I pay attention, but don't worry about it anymore. This makes trying to understand where people are coming from actually fascinating once the fear and knee-jerk reactions are no longer so strong.

    This thread has that sense of openness and. I like it.

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited December 2022

    @Simon said:

    @krassmann said:
    Sorry for the lengthy post but I find this a very important topic to think about.

    No, that was a good post.

    The interesting thing to me is that you have presented a so-called "lefties" point of view outlining how horrible things are and will get in the future.

    And what is more interesting is that the so-called "right wingers" have their own nightmare vision of how bad things are now and will be in the near future.

    Both sides are very concerned about where we are and where we are going. Neither side thinks they have the upper hand. In fact, both sides are convinced that we are doomed because the evil "other side" is winning.

    There is a kind of "concensus of negativity", but for totally different reasons.

    Does the net and social media just make everyone anxious and negative?

    Having an opinion, versus having the power to suppress or assign that opinion are very different. Elon Musk has clearly illustrated that opinions are assigned to people by the Federal government via the media and social media companies with the release of the so-called “Twitter Files”.

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    Elon Musk has proved exactly 0 of those points with his Twitter Files theater which was/is a bogus exercise intended to rile up his “anti-woke” fan base.

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited December 2022

    @espiegel123 said:
    Elon Musk has proved exactly 0 of those points with his Twitter Files theater which was/is a bogus exercise intended to rile up his “anti-woke” fan base.

    Release of the Twitter Files proves a direct link between the Federal government and social media and “news” media suppressing dissenting views and pushing the administration’s positions. This is no longer a question. The FBI has been compensating media to monitor and mute Americans in violation of the First Amendment.

    And Elon Musk is (more or less) a Left Libertarian. He has more in common with the Left than conservatives.

  • michael_mmichael_m

    @NeuM said:
    And Elon Musk is (more or less) a Left Libertarian. He has more in common with the Left than conservatives.

    I don’t think anything could be further from the truth based on his disdain for all things dear to the left.

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited December 2022

    @michael_m said:

    @NeuM said:
    And Elon Musk is (more or less) a Left Libertarian. He has more in common with the Left than conservatives.

    I don’t think anything could be further from the truth based on his disdain for all things dear to the left.

    No, it’s absolutely true. He has said this himself repeatedly.

    Here is but one recent example. He voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden (by the way, no conservative would ever do either of those things) but now opposes the extremists who’ve taken over.

  • michael_mmichael_m

    @NeuM said:

    @michael_m said:

    @NeuM said:
    And Elon Musk is (more or less) a Left Libertarian. He has more in common with the Left than conservatives.

    I don’t think anything could be further from the truth based on his disdain for all things dear to the left.

    No, it’s absolutely true. He has said this himself repeatedly.

    He might WANT people to view him that way, but his actions speak the opposite.

    He’s encouraged voters to vote Republican, repeated conspiracy theories about Nancy Pelosi’s husband, accused various news media of being ‘woke’, regularly flaunted labor laws, primarily retweeted a number of right-leaning individuals and websites, and now always refers to anything centrist or left of center as “the far left”. Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

    Hardly the actions of someone who is left-leaning.

  • michael_mmichael_m

    @NeuM said:

    @michael_m said:

    @NeuM said:
    And Elon Musk is (more or less) a Left Libertarian. He has more in common with the Left than conservatives.

    I don’t think anything could be further from the truth based on his disdain for all things dear to the left.

    No, it’s absolutely true. He has said this himself repeatedly.

    Here is but one recent example. He voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden (by the way, no conservative would ever do either of those things) but now opposes the extremists who’ve taken over.

    That’s 7 months ago, talking about actions from 6 years ago. It certainly doesn’t represent his viewpoints and actions from more recently than that.

Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025