Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Why is this unfair? (Score 1) 291

Fact is, you're not. Nobody is forcing you to spend money to incorporate. But just like if you want to sell on the internet, you need to pay for a website, if you want a certifying authority to certify your identity, then you need to meet the requirements for being certified. Nobody is FORCING you to do it, but if you're not willing to prove your identity by getting incorporated, then the certifying authority isn't willing to certify your identity either.

The principle is well-taken, and your example is certainly okay, but there is a real-world interference in the theoretical system here. It's advertising, otherwise known as raising the awareness of the marketplace.

The corporate entities doing this are in business to increase share-holder value, not to recognise the needs of a changing market place. There is no benefit to them in advertising to the public a complex message (ie. one with three variables): it's in their interest to advertise a very simple one: Green is okay, Anything else is an evil black-hat hacker.

People en masse respond to extremely clear, unambiguous saturation advertising (you need only look at the political success of the Republican party, or if you're a student of history look at the epochal presedential debate between JFK and Nixon, and the different ways that was perceived by the radio and the television audiences, to see that this is true and has been for at least two generations now). So in this case, they're going to get exactly that, and it isn't going to deal adequately with the grey areas.

So, in the real world, the kind of consumer who makes up the mass of the online shopping market is going to receive a simple message: Green is good, Other stuff ain't. Which is all very well and good, but it carries an unspoken correlatory message: businesses of above a certain size are good, businesses below that size are not. And that can be argued to be a sub-optimal economic outcome, regardless of political beliefs and opinons of specific companies. In a capitalist, quasi-free market economy, obstructing the availability of supply to demand diminishes the efficiency of the system, and that is sub-optimal.


Slashdot Top Deals

When you go out to buy, don't show your silver.