Doctors commonly have kickback arrangements to prescribe specific medication. Sometimes it's the correct course of action they just always go for the particular brand, other times it's the wrong course of action but they prescribe it anyway for the kickback (the OxyContin scandal comes to mind).

This is a separate issue for media reporting on (say) new tanning treatments that are endorsed on screen during traditional "news hours" in undeclared infomercial segments that feature "independant" medical experts gushing over benefits of perineum UV treatments.

Frequently both the company that paid for the faux news segment and the guest experts that also benefit fail to have fiscal interests disclosed.

Doctors prescribing drugs recommended to them by pharma reps should disclose that connection.

On a media "news" program:

Producers of media programs should disclose any connection "experts" they interview on a subject have to the financial returns or funding of that subject.

It's also worth noting there are also huge fixed costs for credit card transactions. We're currently upgrading our pinpads and it's been an absolute nightmare to get the right parts in just for physically connecting the damn things to our counters, we lost almost a whole day of backend POS access for our vendor to push a required update, and I'm looking at more fees to be able to support other types of cards which require POS certification.

We strongly prefer our customers use cash.

Couple that with inertia. We couldn't go cash-only even if we wanted to without pissing off a lot of our customers and losing sales. We only recently decided the cost of check fraud outweighed the push back we knew we'd get if we discontinued accepting personal checks.

We're a community-owned business with a fiercely loyal customer base. When we tell folks what payment method is cheapest for us, many will actually choose to use that payment method just to help us save money.

The costs to handle cash are fairly low. He bought one of those fancy cash counters like they have at the bank for a few hundred. He also bought one of those cheap little ATMs for perhaps $500 and charges $1 to take out cash. He keeps $2,000 on hand at all times between the safe and the ATM itself. Otherwise, he just stops by the bank two blocks down the street to deposit profits. As for security, well, they just carry concealed weapons.

The ATM paid for itself in the first month, presumably also the cash counter machine. Notably they did have one counterfeit $100 come through that they forgot to scan. I suppose that’s novel to cash although chargebacks on cards also do occur.

And the more they DDOS small websites — instead of respectfully scraping once — the more realistic my conspiracy theory looks.

Doesn't apply in this case, does it? Can you really see it watching media on a large TV at the usual viewing distances?

I have noticed that the darkest "black level" is less black (despite it being OLED screen) than on glossy screens in light conditions. That difference disappears in darker environment.

This might just mean that if the claim is found valid, there's seven years' worth of inertia slowing down any effort to move on. Seven years in which HW and SW manufacturers worked to build in the support, and you the user developed your processes or workflows around assumptions specifically tied to that solution. I'd rather know on day one if I should go that way or not.

And how does that "ownership" look like in practice? Has Google ever decided how things should be done "or else"? What Google does is pay a protection tax. Without Firefox around and independent, the EU is almost sure to break Chrome away from Google, especially with the warm EU-US relations now. So Google pays and is going to pay as much as it takes to keep Firefox alive, kicking, and doing whatever it wants.

Google Chrome needs Firefox to be moderately successful more than Firefox needs that money. Or else it might become someone else's Chrome.

> Follow the money

Everyone has this revelation once. If it was that easy then customers would practically own the company providing them the services. Do you and your fellow paying customers feel like you own any company, especially big-tech? Do you all control Netflix? Amazon? Apple?

A million individual voices are just noise which is what your "fellow paying customers" line equates. A single monetary contributor is not that. It is the sugar daddy of Firefox. Conflating the two seems to be a bad faith comparison.

Talking about bad faith, with Google's single, enormously powerful voice surely you can hear what it says. So why not answer to literally the first thing I asked in my comment instead of skipping straight to the end to claim bad faith? You should have laundry list of examples to show how Google flashes the cash and the orders, and Firefox executes. That's a sugar daddy.

You understand that if Firefox ever just becomes a puppet on Google hand the whole setup crumbles? It's barely at the edge of plausible deniability even today. Why kill the golden goose when Firefox is anyway in no position to become a real threat on the browser market any time soon.

Plenty of companies lived and died by their customers' "noise", or at least got a bloody nose, so that's a shallow dismissal.

Expecting FF to listen to a million individual users is not a good expectation. Expecting FF to be prone to listening to a single powerful voice would be a better expectation. However, FF has not assimilated into yet another Chrome, so there's some evidence they are not giving in to the whims of that powerful voice.

I think this was always the case. The disillusionment isn't new and not all who are disillusioned will act on it. The rest just put their PhD where the money is, as always.

There are two problems here. One is when the manufacturer sells something with some capabilities and later pulls the rug from under the users and decides to arbitrarily take some features away. This should entitle any customer to take an arbitrary amount of money back from the manufacturer. The second problem is that after a customer buys the product they aren't allowed to own it. If I buy a hammer I'm, allowed to cut it open, dissect everything, modify the handle or the head. That's ownership, not some shallow dismissal that user want to "have their cake and eat it too".

If someone sells you a cake then follows you down the street to take the frosting and one of the layers back, and tells you that any attempt to restore the cake is a crime, you'd start questioning whether it's really your cake to begin with, and what exactly are you eating.