I’m not saying people are not entitled for recognition as the the perpetuators and propagators (there’s a better word,but it escapes me at the moment) of innovative ideas and designs, nor am I suggesting that they not be allowed to profit on those assets, ither tangible or conceptual. Where the line should be drawn is when those ideas become so cosmopolitan in their reach as to be necessary for existence. A few things do exist that fit this bill already, the Internet itself being one of them. One company or government may own the servers it resides on, but as a concept nobody can “own” the internet, just as no one can “own” the ocean, or a holy text, or “own” an experience (the set dressing and location perhaps, but not YOUR feelings and reactions, which are unique to YOU.)

This is a philosophy that imposes a faustian bargain to success in business: the larger your business, the less it belongs to YOU. If your business is all encompassing, (such as in a monopoly), it ceases to even be yours AT ALL.

Not trying to argue, merely provide more context.

that they expected it to eclipse real people AT ALL is both telling and slightly disturbing.

I’m more the guy behind the pink one

Yeah, I’d consider the urge to commit homicide “worse” (and as a fresh convert, let me say, I’d NEVER get away with this comment on Reddit)

I like to drive about 20 over on long hauls, so technically “I’m passing.” PERMANENTLY