#predatory business | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mostlysignssomeportents · 3 months

Text

Big Tech disrupted disruption

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/08/permanent-overlords/#republicans-want-to-defund-the-police

Before "disruption" turned into a punchline, it was a genuinely exciting idea. Using technology, we could connect people to one another and allow them to collaborate, share, and cooperate to make great things happen.

It's easy (and valid) to dismiss the "disruption" of Uber, which "disrupted" taxis and transit by losing $31b worth of Saudi royal money in a bid to collapse the world's rival transportation system, while quietly promising its investors that it would someday have pricing power as a monopoly, and would attain profit through price-gouging and wage-theft.

Uber's disruption story was wreathed in bullshit: lies about the "independence" of its drivers, about the imminence of self-driving taxis, about the impact that replacing buses and subways with millions of circling, empty cars would have on traffic congestion. There were and are plenty of problems with traditional taxis and transit, but Uber magnified these problems, under cover of "disrupting" them away.

But there are other feats of high-tech disruption that were and are genuinely transformative – Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, RSS, and more. These disruptive technologies altered the balance of power between powerful institutions and the businesses, communities and individuals they dominated, in ways that have proven both beneficial and durable.

When we speak of commercial disruption today, we usually mean a tech company disrupting a non-tech company. Tinder disrupts singles bars. Netflix disrupts Blockbuster. Airbnb disrupts Marriott.

But the history of "disruption" features far more examples of tech companies disrupting other tech companies: DEC disrupts IBM. Netscape disrupts Microsoft. Google disrupts Yahoo. Nokia disrupts Kodak, sure – but then Apple disrupts Nokia. It's only natural that the businesses most vulnerable to digital disruption are other digital businesses.

And yet…disruption is nowhere to be seen when it comes to the tech sector itself. Five giant companies have been running the show for more than a decade. A couple of these companies (Apple, Microsoft) are Gen-Xers, having been born in the 70s, then there's a couple of Millennials (Amazon, Google), and that one Gen-Z kid (Facebook). Big Tech shows no sign of being disrupted, despite the continuous enshittification of their core products and services. How can this be? Has Big Tech disrupted disruption itself?

That's the contention of "Coopting Disruption," a new paper from two law profs: Mark Lemley (Stanford) and Matthew Wansley (Yeshiva U):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4713845

The paper opens with a review of the literature on disruption. Big companies have some major advantages: they've got people and infrastructure they can leverage to bring new products to market more cheaply than startups. They've got existing relationships with suppliers, distributors and customers. People trust them.

Diversified, monopolistic companies are also able to capture "involuntary spillovers": when Google spends money on AI for image recognition, it can improve Google Photos, YouTube, Android, Search, Maps and many other products. A startup with just one product can't capitalize on these spillovers in the same way, so it doesn't have the same incentives to spend big on R&D.

Finally, big companies have access to cheap money. They get better credit terms from lenders, they can float bonds, they can tap the public markets, or just spend their own profits on R&D. They can also afford to take a long view, because they're not tied to VCs whose funds turn over every 5-10 years. Big companies get cheap money, play a long game, pay less to innovate and get more out of innovation.

But those advantages are swamped by the disadvantages of incumbency, all the various curses of bigness. Take Arrow's "replacement effect": new companies that compete with incumbents drive down the incumbents' prices and tempt their customers away. But an incumbent that buys a disruptive new company can just shut it down, and whittle down its ideas to "sustaining innovation" (small improvements to existing products), killing "disruptive innovation" (major changes that make the existing products obsolete).

Arrow's Replacement Effect also comes into play before a new product even exists. An incumbent that allows a rival to do R&D that would eventually disrupt its product is at risk; but if the incumbent buys this pre-product, R&D-heavy startup, it can turn the research to sustaining innovation and defund any disruptive innovation.

Arrow asks us to look at the innovation question from the point of view of the company as a whole. Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" looks at the motivations of individual decision-makers in large, successful companies. These individuals don't want to disrupt their own business, because that will render some part of their own company obsolete (perhaps their own division!). They also don't want to radically change their customers' businesses, because those customers would also face negative effects from disruption.

A startup, by contrast, has no existing successful divisions and no giant customers to safeguard. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from disruption. Where a large company has no way for individual employees to initiate major changes in corporate strategy, a startup has fewer hops between employees and management. What's more, a startup that rewards an employee's good idea with a stock-grant ties that employee's future finances to the outcome of that idea – while a giant corporation's stock bonuses are only incidentally tied to the ideas of any individual worker.

Big companies are where good ideas go to die. If a big company passes on its employees' cool, disruptive ideas, that's the end of the story for that idea. But even if 100 VCs pass on a startup's cool idea and only one VC funds it, the startup still gets to pursue that idea. In startup land, a good idea gets lots of chances – in a big company, it only gets one.

Given how innately disruptable tech companies are, given how hard it is for big companies to innovate, and given how little innovation we've gotten from Big Tech, how is it that the tech giants haven't been disrupted?

The authors propose a four-step program for the would-be Tech Baron hoping to defend their turf from disruption.

First, gather information about startups that might develop disruptive technologies and steer them away from competing with you, by investing in them or partnering with them.

Second, cut off any would-be competitor's supply of resources they need to develop a disruptive product that challenges your own.

Third, convince the government to pass regulations that big, established companies can comply with but that are business-killing challenges for small competitors.

Finally, buy up any company that resists your steering, succeeds despite your resource war, and escapes the compliance moats of regulation that favors incumbents.

Then: kill those companies.

The authors proceed to show that all four tactics are in play today. Big Tech companies operate their own VC funds, which means they get a look at every promising company in the field, even if they don't want to invest in them. Big Tech companies are also awash in money and their "rival" VCs know it, and so financial VCs and Big Tech collude to fund potential disruptors and then sell them to Big Tech companies as "aqui-hires" that see the disruption neutralized.

On resources, the authors focus on data, and how companies like Facebook have explicit policies of only permitting companies they don't see as potential disruptors to access Facebook data. They reproduce internal Facebook strategy memos that divide potential platform users into "existing competitors, possible future competitors, [or] developers that we have alignment with on business models." These categories allow Facebook to decide which companies are capable of developing disruptive products and which ones aren't. For example, Amazon – which doesn't compete with Facebook – is allowed to access FB data to target shoppers. But Messageme, a startup, was cut off from Facebook as soon as management perceived them as a future rival. Ironically – but unsurprisingly – Facebook spins these policies as pro-privacy, not anti-competitive.

These data policies cast a long shadow. They don't just block existing companies from accessing the data they need to pursue disruptive offerings – they also "send a message" to would-be founders and investors, letting them know that if they try to disrupt a tech giant, they will have their market oxygen cut off before they can draw breath. The only way to build a product that challenges Facebook is as Facebook's partner, under Facebook's direction, with Facebook's veto.

Next, regulation. Starting in 2019, Facebook started publishing full-page newspaper ads calling for regulation. Someone ghost-wrote a Washington Post op-ed under Zuckerberg's byline, arguing the case for more tech regulation. Google, Apple, OpenAI other tech giants have all (selectively) lobbied in favor of many regulations. These rules covered a lot of ground, but they all share a characteristic: complying with them requires huge amounts of money – money that giant tech companies can spare, but potential disruptors lack.

Finally, there's predatory acquisitions. Mark Zuckerberg, working without the benefit of a ghost writer (or in-house counsel to review his statements for actionable intent) has repeatedly confessed to buying companies like Instagram to ensure that they never grow to be competitors. As he told one colleague, "I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. The thing about startups though is you can often acquire them.”

All the tech giants are acquisition factories. Every successful Google product, almost without exception, is a product they bought from someone else. By contrast, Google's own internal products typically crash and burn, from G+ to Reader to Google Videos. Apple, meanwhile, buys 90 companies per year – Tim Apple brings home a new company for his shareholders more often than you bring home a bag of groceries for your family. All the Big Tech companies' AI offerings are acquisitions, and Apple has bought more AI companies than any of them.

Big Tech claims to be innovating, but it's really just operationalizing. Any company that threatens to disrupt a tech giant is bought, its products stripped of any really innovative features, and the residue is added to existing products as a "sustaining innovation" – a dot-release feature that has all the innovative disruption of rounding the corners on a new mobile phone.

The authors present three case-studies of tech companies using this four-point strategy to forestall disruption in AI, VR and self-driving cars. I'm not excited about any of these three categories, but it's clear that the tech giants are worried about them, and the authors make a devastating case for these disruptions being disrupted by Big Tech.

What do to about it? If we like (some) disruption, and if Big Tech is enshittifying at speed without facing dethroning-by-disruption, how do we get the dynamism and innovation that gave us the best of tech?

The authors make four suggestions.

First, revive the authorities under existing antitrust law to ban executives from Big Tech companies from serving on the boards of startups. More broadly, kill interlocking boards altogether. Remember, these powers already exist in the lawbooks, so accomplishing this goal means a change in enforcement priorities, not a new act of Congress or rulemaking. What's more, interlocking boards between competing companies are illegal per se, meaning there's no expensive, difficult fact-finding needed to demonstrate that two companies are breaking the law by sharing directors.

Next: create a nondiscrimination policy that requires the largest tech companies that share data with some unaffiliated companies to offer data on the same terms to other companies, except when they are direct competitors. They argue that this rule will keep tech giants from choking off disruptive technologies that make them obsolete (rather than competing with them).

On the subject of regulation and compliance moats, they have less concrete advice. They counsel lawmakers to greet tech giants' demands to be regulated with suspicion, to proceed with caution when they do regulate, and to shape regulation so that it doesn't limit market entry, by keeping in mind the disproportionate burdens regulations put on established giants and small new companies. This is all good advice, but it's more a set of principles than any kind of specific practice, test or procedure.

Finally, they call for increased scrutiny of mergers, including mergers between very large companies and small startups. They argue that existing law (Sec 2 of the Sherman Act and Sec 7 of the Clayton Act) both empower enforcers to block these acquisitions. They admit that the case-law on this is poor, but that just means that enforcers need to start making new case-law.

I like all of these suggestions! We're certainly enjoying a more activist set of regulators, who are more interested in Big Tech, than we've seen in generations.

But they are grossly under-resourced even without giving them additional duties. As Matt Stoller points out, "the DOJ's Antitrust Division has fewer people enforcing anti-monopoly laws in a $24 trillion economy than the Smithsonian Museum has security guards."

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/congressional-republicans-to-defund

What's more, Republicans are trying to slash their budgets even further. The American conservative movement has finally located a police force they're eager to defund: the corporate police who defend us all from predatory monopolies.

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

284 notes · View notes

bitchesgetriches · 6 months

Text

Predatory NDAs Just Got a Lot Harder To Enforce

Within the last six months, three major changes have drastically reduced the enforceability of predatory NDAs.

These changes provide general protection to all impacted employees, and specific protections for victims of sexual harassment. With this, it seems the power and popularity of predatory NDAs is finally waning. And workers are gaining back ground they never should’ve lost.

Keep reading.

If you liked this article, join our Patreon!

#non disclosure agreement #NDA #predatory business practices #news #worker's rights #labor rights.

180 notes · View notes

tsukaproshp · 3 months

Text

mate really though 'uhm yes let's call this person a slur !' and 'a subhuman' and tell them they should 'die' or 'be thrown in jail'

but also ... how tf spoke about 'real kids' ? i for sure did not but i am guessing you ( anon ) is the kind of person to see fictional kids as 'real' kids

genuinely still lost about the 'predatory, revolting hands' and the 'enjoy what you like, just be normal about real kids' because ?? i will gladly enjoy what i like but i never spoke about real kids or anything that could lead you to think i'm predatory and have 'revolting hands'

like ... it just doesn't make sense babe !

but anywho - the most illegal shit i ever did was smoke weed and steal a tennis ball from decathlon and i will continue being a big mean proshipper shotacon, you are getting reported !! :3

#answering the mails ! 🌸#hatemail #i do like cgl so ig this kind of person could see me as predatory and to be weird about kids regardless #but like !! i never spoke about it on here because it's not anyones business #proship blog #proship safe

39 notes · View notes

cjoatprehn · 26 days

Text

Happy Escapril! I hope everyone’s having a good day so far. I’m dropping my first poem with @adventurerswritingguild second prompt from their list! Day two is “The Internet.” I really channeled this song for inspiration. It won’t read the same, the message is ultimately what I’m going for here.

Song Playing:

Here’s my poem with Alt Text provided. I hope you enjoy.

Oh snap! I maxed out tumblr tags for the first time! That’s a new record. 30 max. Huh. Good to know.

Update with Spoken Word

[#escapril Spoken Word] “A 25 year old Codger’s Cloud Rant” by CJOAT for AWG Shoutout @boburnham

youtube

It is April 10. I have another update. It took awhile. I have been getting worsening nightmares as of recent. So I haven’t been sleeping well. Rather at all.

That talk is not for this post.

I made a graphic for “A 25 Year Old Codger’s Cloud Rant.” I made it cyber themed based on the internet. It was hard to make due to the effect on my eyes but…this is an eyestrain warning. Be warned, as I cannot add the eyestrain tag when there’s 30 already.

I hope everyone has a good day, whenever you see this. You can do this. I’m proud of you.

12 notes · View notes

spaciebabie · 10 months

Text

why did we let companies get away with putting features that should not be put behind paywalls behind paywalls. $9.99 ta listen ta music w/my screen off on youtube music. something that almost all other music platorms do for free. a hundred dollars a year ta change my pfp in different servers on discord and be able ta use animated emojis. what the fuck.

#spacie spoinks #upset #wow i love predatory business practices!!!!

53 notes · View notes

athenaholmesartistsguild · 5 months

Text

All my Tarot Card designs

Check this card out on my Patreon for free!

Here's my King of Pentacles card!

Definitely an obvious choice, but I went with Akiyama for this one. If you're interested in reading more about the King of Pentacles and my reasoning for choosing Akiyama for this card, I'll put that under the cut:

Upright, the King of Pentacles is the ultimate rags-to-riches story. He did not inherit his obscene wealth. He earned it through his own hard work. But unlike other wealthy individuals who come from similar circumstances, but lose their connection to the less fortunate, the King of Pentacles has chosen to uplift those around him and share his wealth.

In this generosity we see someone who has faith in their ability to make enough money to replace what they're giving away. To the King of Pentacles, the lives of the people he's helping are much more precious than the numbers in his bank account.

The King of Pentacles accrued his wealth in the traditional ways-- he's not one to gamble and he doesn't typically indulge in frivolous spending. Through his hardships he has learned the importance of controlling his spending and investing wisely. Showing off or taking risks on a whim no longer appeal to him. He would much rather use his money to help people and actually make a difference in other people's lives.

Emotionally, he's not all that in touch with his own feelings or the feelings of others. This is largely due to this king feeling like he has other things he'd like to devote his attention to. While he definitely cares about his loved ones and the people he serves, this can manifest in criticism or advice that you might not have asked for.

Reversed, we see a King who no longer supports his people. Whereas the upright King of Pentacles is generous and confident that he will make back everything he gives away (and then some), the reversed King of Pentacles sees no value in generosity. His controlled spending habits have become penny-pinching and cheap and his confidence is replaced with an almost desperate need for wealth in all its materialistic qualities.

Despite his obsession with all things commercial, this reversed king doesn't have that much money. It seems to just slip out of his hands, being spent on gambling or other impulse-purchases that he can't afford.

His previous lack of emotional intelligence is now downright cruelty. He is aware of others feelings and thoughts, but he simply does not care. He is now completely inwardly focused, choosing to take what he wants regardless of how it affects others.

Akiyama definitely fits the upright version of the King of Pentacles. Considering he runs a loan business that doesn't charge any interest, I'm not saying anything all that revolutionary.

Reversed though, I think there's a more interesting discussion to have about Akiyama's character and how it relates to this tarot card.

So I'm not a huge fan of the way Akiyama treats women in Yakuza 4. For one, the male customers he has get these personalized tests that make them face the issues that caused them to seek a loan in the first place, but then for the women it's just "work at my hostess club, go on a date with me, or be willing to do sex work". When looking at Akiyama's treatment of women in 4, specifically Yasuko, we see a man who wants something and engineers situations to manipulate the woman into giving him what he wants. Yasuko says so herself that she can't really decline a date with the person who decides whether or not she gets the loan.

And while Akiyama isn't evil or even necessarily doing this consciously, we see someone who is willing to hold the promise of a loan over the heads of the people who have something he wants.

Akiyama wants to help people and that's great, but there's also a dark side to his generosity.

#The end sounds kinda critical but I actually like Akiyama as a character quite a bit!#This is mostly a read on his character in 4 because that's where I feel a lot of the issues I've had with his behavior originate.#In 5 he seems more like a trickster god which is a little more entertaining to watch.#Still a bit fucked up but less predatory and weird.#Like. It's kinda hilarious to tell someone who's acting like a pageant mom that he'll give her the money to mold someone into the #perfect idol and then turn around and tell her that she'll have to quit the business after the idol's debut concert.#yakuza #my art #yakuza fanart #akiyama shun #tarot card #tarot card design

14 notes · View notes

teleomancer · 3 months

Text

#not to like 'how dare you fail to account for my hyperspecific life' but specifically gym owners as 'sympathetic to the homeless' is um.#laser focused irony like you're shitting me. chain gyms [ymca too] were rough enough but the private ones were the worst and they knew it #oh yeah sure the fitness-oriented type with enough coin to start a gym is sympathetic to the broke kid for any reason other than Hole ofc #don't fucking touch me #when someone that can be used to an end is reduced to scrambling for subsistence or scraps- there's few friends worse than Small Business #the fantasy that pretends the small business owner is more Small than Business and somehow not Owner either? kid yourself fkn harder #patently predatory class emboldened by a mythology of kindly shopkeeps and wizened artisans you're joking you're fkn joking. charlatans all #this stopped being about gyms halfway

5 notes · View notes

bananonbinary · 1 year

Text

just saw a dni that included “rape apologist/supporter” and like. once again. no one in the world self-identifies as that. no one is pro-rape. if you want to actually keep people off your blog instead of vaguely listing out Bad Things so you can look good, you need to *specify who the fuck you’re talking about*

#rape mention /#like. i can imagine this is a dig against any number of communities that are just minding their own business #but they DO NOT SELF IDENTIFY AS PRO RAPE OH MY GOD #and it is NOT clear who the hell you're talking about #because just about every marginalized identity has been accused of being predatory rapists #like are you talking about gay men are you talking about fandom bullshit or are you just vaguely saying 'rape is bad' for clout #the last one is also stupid cause that is not a position that gets you many brownie points #it is the default position

56 notes · View notes

obeymebutnotlikethat · 2 years

Text

When Lisa suspected she was pregnant, she did what other teenagers might: She Googled her options to terminate. One of the first links that popped up in the search engine was a clinic in Volusia, Florida, where the 19-year-old lived. The offer of a free pregnancy test tempted Lisa into booking an appointment and she drove there with her boyfriend, parking across the street. It was a small town, and she did not want to be recognized.

The consultation room was filled with posters depicting fetuses with speech bubbles, as if they were asking to be born. Lisa sobbed as one of the women running the clinic confirmed she was pregnant; they had refused to let her take a test home. Lisa needed to return for an ultrasound in four weeks to be certain, and then they could discuss options. But until then, they told her, she absolutely should not go to an abortion clinic. “Maybe you’ll miscarry and then you won’t have any problems,” the woman suggested.

As Lisa started to realize it wasn’t a medical facility, she became terrified for her privacy. “This information can’t go anywhere, right?” she begged a receptionist on her way out the door. “No one is gonna know that I was here?”

The answer wasn’t reassuring. “I remember her saying: ‘Well, honey, this is what happens when you have sex.’”

Lisa, who asked not to be identified by her real name, did manage to get an abortion from a different provider. But she also ended up in a database. The center continued to call her every few weeks to ask for an update on the baby and offer parenting classes. And as women like Lisa around the country are led unsuspectingly into anti-abortion centers, known as “crisis pregnancy centers,” academics and advocates for reproductive rights are concerned about what happens to this potentially incriminating data — especially after abortion becomes illegal in many states following Friday’s Roe v. Wade ruling.

[...]

Anti-abortion organizations have gotten more savvy about tracking their visitors and collecting information that isn’t protected by medical privacy laws. Tara Murtha, communications director at Women’s Law Project, said that if women in states where abortions are restricted visit a center and then fail to have a baby, there’s a record that could be passed into the hands of “overzealous prosecutors,” examples of which have almost tripled in the last 12 years.

“There’s going to be policing and surveillance of pregnant people and, if there’s an adverse outcome other than a full term, healthy baby, that could invite investigation into what that person might have done to cause that,” Murtha said.

[...]

Research suggests that most women who visit these clinics with the intention of getting an abortion will go on to do so. Still, many of the women who visit are not even pregnant and want to use the free services the clinics offer, which come with tie-ins like signing up to a program and handing over personal information. This has led academics and researchers to believe they have an alternative primary goal than just convincing pregnant women not to have an abortion.

#abortion #crisis pregnancy centers #predatory business #women #lgbtq community

13 notes · View notes

faerygardenparty · 2 months

Text

There needs to be another strike but solely against warner bros and I’m so so serious about that because how are they STILL able to get away with doing the shit that the unions struck against last year

#fae.txt #rooster teeth #warner bros #while what happened with RT is not exactly the same it’s another example of their predatory business tactics #I have a lot more thoughts on the matter obviously the situation is so much more nuanced #but I’m too tired to really get into it #maybe tomorrow morning

6 notes · View notes

ming-sik · 4 months

Text

ok im talking to a brick fucking wall here but in case anyones actually curious the "are cishet aro men lgbt" poll is very much taken out of context and ive seen a lot of ppl, who have heard secondhand that there are people who dont think aroallo people are inherently lgbt, who did not see the original conversation.

which to be crystal crystal clear was this post, heres the conversation being discussed

notice that this guy never says hes aromantic and he specifically says that hes "not really at a point he can get into something serious" meaning that he 1) is not saying he never wants a romantic relationship he just doesnt want one right now and 2) refers to a romantic relationship as "something serious" bc he like most cishet people sees a relationship as inherently the most serious type of relationship.

additionally the reason people are upset at the guy is that although its only spelled out in the continuation where the girl explicitly says that he's asking for this despite her telling him she wants a romantic relationship if she's going to sleep with someone which is actually her setting a boundary, "exclusive obvi" in the first part most people have seen means that he is not proposing this as a thing that any given person may or may not be okay with, he is assuming without asking that she's willing to be relegated to a status he himself says is "less serious". the fact is that most cishet men are not actually friends with their fwbs and in most cases it's a code for "girl i expect all the duties of a girlfriend from with none of the care im obligated to give a girlfriend". it is the freelance contractor of het relationships.

and like is it not more disrespectful to imply that people who don't want to commit to treating someone theyre fucking as well as they think a romantic partner would expect of them are aromantic??? why would being an emotionally neglectful dickhead make you aromantic??? aromantic people are people who are not romantically attracted to other people, that's it. they are fully capable of respecting peoples' boundaries and treating their friends/sexual partners/qprs/etc as well as someone else would treat a romantic partner. like do yall not think people are wrong when they say aros are just creeps who want to use people for sex and then dip on them? why is the stance here "actually that is true but it's good actually".

the reason the poll was made in the first place was that someone got irritated that people were trying to argue that this specific shitty guy was actually aromantic and the girl was arophobic for setting a healthy boundary between her and a guy who was expecting an unhealthy relationship of her! random misogynists were the people who decided to bring aromantic people into this when they were not originally mentioned in the slightest! if you want to blame anyone, blame them for saying that emotionally abusive equals aromantic!

#aromantic #by far the reason this is such a mess is that ppl dont realize the original discussion #was about a specific manipulative/misogynistic behavior by some straight men towards women #that literally relies on them seeing romantic relationships as important enough to deserve more effort than a fwb #so ppl defending these guys are not defending aromantic ppl!#these guys arent aromantic. theyre predatory and misogynistic heterosexuals #and frankly if u cant tell the difference between that and aromantic ppl. u have some stuff to work out #its just wild to me. i havent participated in the aro community for a while #when did yall decide we were all raging misogynists who hate healthy emotional communication. can we roll that back maybe.#if ur mad that the girl didnt want to be exclusive fwb. fucking skill issue. people are allowed to have boundaries #and this girl spells out that shes been burnt out on that bc of guys like the one in this conversation #thats her damn business!! point me to where she fucking says 'and this preference is applicable to all people ever'#like @ people complaining that everyones assuming cishet aro men are predatory #they arent actually until someone said that a predatory cishet guy was aromantic #you dug a hole in front of someones house and blamed them when you fell in it.

4 notes · View notes