Even in a home poker game, it is not possible for all the players to go home having made a profit, whereas that is very possible in the stock market due to growth, labor, and natural resources.
(The coal miner who gets a wage and black lung is not a player in the stock market. Neither is the sun, which provides free energy to agribusiness.)
In gambling, the house always wins, by extracting value from the players. In stock trading, the players (capitalists) collectively always win, by extracting value from labor, technological growth, and natural resources. These are not the same picture.
Sure, you can take on as much risk as you like using derivatives, and emulate a gambler using the stock market as a source of randomness (volatility). But that's not how most traders behave, and it's not how most traders' payoffs work.
As the article mentions, Red Hat is IBM.
For what it's worth, getting in the habit of making excuses for one's use is part of alcoholism.
So you're into sending the police after the writers, directors, and producers of the Saw movies, but not the audiences?
I dunno man, that's still too fascist for my tastes, but you can keep fantasizing about it. I promise I won't try to send the police after you for your perverted fantasies of state power.
I hate torture-porn movies like the Saw series, but a lot of people are fans of them. Should I worry that those people are likely to commit kidnapping, torture, and murder? Should I advocate that the makers or watchers of those movies be investigated for kidnapping, torture, and murder — without any evidence that a crime was committed?
We don't send the cops after people for liking murder stories, theft stories, industrial sabotage stories, or treason stories. We shouldn't send the cops after people for liking stories of Harry Potter getting fucked by Severus Snape either.
I think you should be more careful to distinguish fantasy from reality. Most fiction readers and writers have no problem doing so.
I'm just saying, police investigation of fiction creators and readers for the content of their fiction is way over the line of a lot of social and political norms.
(Also, I think you'll find that police abuse children a lot more than pervy fiction fans do; so really, who should be investigating whom? Investigation into crime is supposed to start with evidence that a crime actually occurred — not with your personal disgust towards someone's reading matter.)
Just to be clear, are you saying that people should be investigated by the police for fictional stories that they read?
Gotta admit, I originally wrote "old farts" and "young shits", and decided that was too rude.
Federated platforms don't die to corporate-type enshittification. They die to spam or elitism.
If operators fail to collaborate on keeping spam down, the platform becomes unusable or greatly-diminished due to spam. See Usenet for example — yes, it's still around, but it's greatly diminished from the 1990s. New projects and organizations don't tell participants to subscribe to a Usenet newsgroup for discussion. (Curiously, email mailing-lists have outlived Usenet in this way, at least for technical projects. While email is federated, any given mailing-list is centralized.)
If the technology isn't developed with an eye to new users' needs and new use cases, because it's "good enough" for the existing established users, the platform becomes dated and gets replaced by something trendy and corporate. This is IRC vs. Discord and Slack. IRC has a higher barrier to entry and infamously doesn't work well on mobile — but it's good enough for the old farts who care about it, while the young farts move to Discord instead.
Try text.