On: Figma and Adobe abandon proposed merger

[robertlagrant]

You think this is "ideology" that will cause that?

> It shouldn't be normal to expect the government to be involved in approving things except where there's a great reason to need it.

[cjaybo → robertlagrant]

We could guess or we could refer to history to here. Maybe you would rather be doomed to repeat it?

[scarface_74 → cjaybo]

Yes because

Step 1: Adobe buys Figma

.

.

.

Step n: Adobe takes over a small town and forces people to make websites?

Please tell me how the government’s actions has stopped that conclusion.

[itishappy → robertlagrant]

Yes. Your quote is an example of the exact ideology that leads to Standard Oil and company towns.

[robertlagrant → itishappy]

What is that ideology? "Government shouldn't be involved unless there's a great reason to do so"?

If you think preventing company towns isn't a great reason to need approval, fair enough, but then why are you saying company towns are bad?

[scarface_74 → robertlagrant]

So exactly how was the government preventing a company town here?

And if a town is dependent on one major employee should we do what exactly?

[robertlagrant → scarface_74]

> So exactly how was the government preventing a company town here?

Where is here?

[scarface_74 → robertlagrant]

By stopping Adobe from buying Figma. How exactly has the government stopped Adobe from starting a company town?

[robertlagrant → scarface_74]

Sorry, I don't see why you're replying to my comment on this - I wasn't saying Adobe is about to start a company town.

[scarface_74 → robertlagrant]

Then what exactly is the purpose of bringing up “company towns” in a post about Adobe not being able to buy Figma?

[itishappy → robertlagrant]

No. I think anti-trust regulations are really important. Don't you?

[robertlagrant → itishappy]

"unless there's a great reason to do so"

I'm really struggling to understand why you're asking questions tartly instead of just reading what I said, which I tried to make very simple to understand, and replying just as simply.

[itishappy → robertlagrant]

I've read it. I'm asking questions because I'm struggling to understand the point you're trying to make. I thought I understood, but your response was so far off of my intent that I'm no longer certain.

You said the government shouldn't involve itself "unless there's a great reason to do so," which I interpret as implying you disagree with the reasons. Do you think anti-trust measures are a great reason?