I keep a web server active not for popularity, nor traffic, BUT JUST IN CASE.

It's as 'free' as a vps can be, which is to say nothing is 'free'.

I can whack up a Raspberry Pi, LAMP stack or whatever, and it's maybe a $60 cost today, SD card included.

Access to the Internet? Never was free. Even ARPANet required data lines, not free. I've used dial-up, DDS2, T-1/E-1, BRI, cable, fiber, none ever free.

I know what Tim Berners-Lee means, but there will always be choke points, and those today are, fundamentally, access points. If they wish, or are compelled to, they can cut you off. Even Meshtastic eventually needs that Internet connection to escape into the greater world.

So we should seek free access wherever possible, and not tilt at windmills of FOSS, dis-en$%#ification bs, or emotional suppression, and ensure your message gets out, even if no one reads or listens.

Interest or usury might be considered unethical or immoral, as it is in Islam. But it's not rent seeking. I give you some of my capital for you to use. I charge you interest on it. I put it at risk, if for no other reason but I'm putting in your hands and not mine. If you pay me back most excellent you got the use of it. I got the interest. If you don't pay it back, prima fascia example of risk.

I'll just take one example. The NFA tax that used to be required to buy suppressors distorts the market by restricting it to people who can afford to buy the suppressor. In addition to the tax. If you can't afford to buy the suppressor by itself, the argument is moving. You're not part of that. But add another couple hundred bucks on top of it, and you do have a problem. I neglected dimension that in that process it was not uncommon for applicants to wait 6 to 9 months for approval of what was merely an administrative function.

I won't go any further because ultimately a lot of this is going to be in the eye of the beholder. My bottom line is still by bottom line, landlords rarely can be considered in the economics since rent seekers. They provide value. Whether it's proportionate to the the payments received, while that's a contract and that's between the two parties.

Hanlon's Law.

Yes, you could help yourself to not attribute mistakes to malice. But it's more rewarding to find fault in others.

Would not bother me at all if Aluminum ditched X for Wayland. X11 is an interesting kludge that has been 'made to work' over the years. Mostly by taking advantage of various lax permissions, poorly defined functions, and tolerance of workarounds because, frankly, X did not want to be bothered with fixing much if it could avoid it. That's a good strategy for games and toys, bad strategy for industry standards.

I, for one, welcome our new window manager and compositor overlords.

OK. Common examples of rent-seeking would include:

The NFA previously required payment of a $200 fee for a 'stamp' or something, so that you would be permitted to purchase a suppressor, or other restricted firearm accessories. Adding absolutely NO value to the transaction, other than registration, which would be the second criteria to be considered as a 'rent-seeker'.

Many states permit reciprocal privileges for certain trades and such, those in the cosmetology and similar fields, but they require a license fee anyways. This is to me 75% rent-seeking, they don't even test you, they should just accept the other states' licenses and just make them renew at their previous state. Which would then trigger a real licensing event, but we digress...

Many other professions in America and elsewhere are required to be licensed, pay fees, and not for any purpose than to share in the revenue.

From Wikipedia: "Rent-seeking is the practice of individuals or businesses trying to gain economic benefits through manipulation of public policy or economic conditions, rather than through productive activities.". A definition, but one I think is somewhat limited. But based, quoting, on "Adam Smith's division of incomes into profit, wage, and economic rent. The origin of the term refers to gaining control of land or other natural resources."

This is where the depiction of landlords as rent-0seekers comes from, their ownership of property and deriving revenue from that. In truth, this more accurately refers to the Middle Ages and other eras where the local warlord (etc.) would purport to provide protection and other benefits to the surrounding villagers and farmers in exchange for a 'tax', a share of their goods, crops, revenue. This ultimately, in England, became the landed gentry system, with the good results of the Magna Carta, and the bad effects Adam Smith documented as described above, somewhat.

Regulatory capture is a more contemporary example, and along with so many other effects, such as failed regulation and even damaging practices... Even more harm.

Landlords that offer their property for occupancy, for a fee, collect rent, but offer the value and utility of the space. Not rent-seeking in the economics understanding. Collecting a fee to permit you to occupy a seat in a stadium and enjoy viewing a movie is also not that form of 'rent-seeking', though it resembles landlord activity, differing in the space made available, the duration of the lease, and not merely an enclosed space suitable for habitation or business, but the provision of entertainment...

Demonization of landlords in the root example here was based on the allegation that increases in property value within a neighborhood being 'gentrified', and resulting in those property value increases, should be shared with tenants in commercial property, despite those tenants, presumably because they should be renumerated for their contribution to the overall improvements and such. This ignores that likely reality that they both are in business ONLY because of the local economic improvements, and also that their success of failure is not entirely dependent on the landlord, beyond their landlord providing suitable premises.

But demonization of successful private enterprises is a basic tenant of Marxism, which is getting popular in the US. That's an entirely different discussion etc.

...MCSE school. Having an illuminating discussion wit the instructor over using the .local TLD for internal DNS. Followed by "well, just use .mslocal, that will be safe forever."

Admittedly this was 1993, when no one could conceive of new TLDs. Except for a few of us CNEs who were trained to think ahead, occasionally.

We were trained to have our clients register their domain, immediately, and run their own internal DNS, back when it was truly wizardry. But worth it.

Why does Outlook etc. even permit this? Well, pink contracts and take the business, even of scanners. Microsoft is not alone in this.

Reduce opportunity? Then you're also identifying usery, debt and interest, as rent-seeking?

A landlord does not have any duty to enhance 'opportunity', other than provide usable space. If you think higher rents reduce opportunity and deprive for instance, shop owners opportunity to practice, then you must feel the same way about gasoline prices, taxes, utilities, every expense. Rent or lease for a property is an expense for a business owner if they choose to do it that way.

If you persist in misinterpreting the term 'rent seeking', you risk my believing you do not merely understand, but you assert that property ownership is somehow indefensible on its own merits.

But then I re-read your comment. It must be too early in the day for you to discern the difference between 'make unwarranted profit' and 'actually own and use'.

Did you intend to assert that these landlords, at least, neither actually owned, nor use, the property they did, in fact, own? Are you so lost in the weeds of rent, property rights, and some sense of justice?

"they use software from a company that organizes landlords together to raise rents in unison to increase profits"

Please, investigate the nature of rent-seeking. Google is your source. Please.

You're describing collusion, price-fixing, and anti-trust violations. At least get your offenses straight...

I'm watching a version of this where I live. Lots of single-family homes built-to-rent. But this is not a rental lock-in as it may seem.

In Maricopa County, Arizona, builders need a 100-year guarantee of water supply. This is usually provided by the municipality. Ah, but groundwater is being consumed faster than expected, other pressures, and it really doesn't matter what they are. Builders are being denied these certificates. No build, no sale.

One way around this is for municipalities to arrange for water form other sources, but water management areas such as in Maricopa County cont5rol all that.

So, the build-to-rent boom. For rentals, they need not have a certification of water supply. Now, sadly, this means that some day the municipality can deny them service, as they never had as guarantee. There is notice to be given of course, but in the end these homes sit idle when that happens, and it will happen.

Yet, until then, well, profit. And the municipality enjoys tax revenue, both property and sales etc., investors get their end, and renters live happy as can be until the other shoe drops.

Mind you, where I live, plenty of regular build are happening, so many that we are now 50,000 population over what was planned as 'full build-out'. In other words, oversubscribed. But that's the least of their maladministration.

Around the Phoenix area, rents increases are slowing down, partly due to reduced demand, as you might guess, and partly due to some investors cashing out as mortgage rates dip just enough to make it worth buying. And plenty of legit, for-sale homes are being built, it seems many in the affordable pricing ranges.

But the choice to rent or buy is not as simple as it seems. It's not always investors busting the market, sometimes it's in-migration, with newcomers in the Phoenix area last year hitting the market hard. That's resolving.

The trick here is that if doesn't really matter how the lease payment is calculated, it's still a lease payment. But keep trying to make landlords into rent seekers.

Bear in mind that this arrangement could be characterized differently. Is that business starts out slow, sales are low, the business is getting started. Lease payments are low. As the business grows, revenue increases, lease payments do increase, but with increased revenue the business can support it.

That's exactly the arrangement most of the time.

Another way is to use escalating payments, annual increases. Sometimes this is the reason behind an apparently successful business closing 'lost our lease'. Revenue didn't meet predictions.

If you've never been a property owner, you have, perhaps, very little understanding of the business. For instance, does the municipality stop collecting property tax if your property is empty, and no rent is coming in?

In my part of the country, the non-hoa neighborhoods are often also older and sometimes lower quality. You can fix up your property if you want to, it's an expense and maybe not recovered and improved property value, but these neighborhoods are also often a shorter commute. Just cuz they're close at everything that's not residential and that's not always desirable. Your experience of course and my experience of course are both limited.

And bear in mind that in the example of say a retailer, the retailer puts their stock including their time at risk. Hoping that they'll they'll sell enough stock at enough profit that they can persist. Their landlord's risk is perhaps as simple as the opportunity to rent someone else at a higher price, though of course that's always a choice they have to make. There is risk in owning property and there is risk in starting a business to do just about anything. The primary risk in business probably is failure. Failure in honing property could be as simple as a total loss due to disaster or even unlawful activity, it can also be as vacancy