On: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly...

[BizarroLand]

Most people responded by providing a logical response to my argument while discarding the semantics.

Semantically, what company that (Relies on Amazon to operate) couldn't they destroy on a whim?

[danielmarkbruce → BizarroLand]

That's pretty circular. To the extent any company, A, relies on company B to operate, A can be destroyed by B, according the definition of "rely".

So the logical response wasn't to assume you were being circular. The logical response was to assume you were inferring Amazon is big enough and capable enough to squash any business.

[BizarroLand → danielmarkbruce]

And yet it is obvious in retrospect that I didn't mean entirely independent multi-billion dollar empires, but that is the response everyone went with.

[danielmarkbruce → BizarroLand]

It clearly wasn't obvious to most given the responses.

[BizarroLand → danielmarkbruce]

Maybe not to you