I addressed your core points directly. Your attacks are rapidly devolving. Capitalism is not flawless which is why I mentioned the term externalities that you conveniently ignored. It means I am trying to get you to actually address problems instead of using intentionally vague but radical language. Does this normally work for you with anyone that doesn’t already agree with you?

You mentioned an order of events, I followed it. The damage was done and then priced in. They have been attempting to do damage control to limit its scope and investors are betting on the likelihood of a cascade.

Now who’s jumping to conclusions? Personal attacks are a logical fallacy but thanks for making your own bad faith approach blatantly obvious.

There are as many different definitions of neoliberalism as there are people that know the term. Your argument is a populist one.

I’m not so sure that it will have negative long term impacts. The damage has been done. They don’t see reversing it as improving their chances to turn things around. In terms of investors, if they are willing to shell out cash for Reddit right now, maybe they deserve their fate.

I’m terms of your political opinion, the only thing I know is you don’t like capitalism. You either don’t understand the definition of it, subscribe to what I addressed broadly, or believe in a former dead form of economic system. Really, it’s on you to be specific.

Which is why their valuation had already halved. Do you guys consider your arguments even beyond the surface level? A company doing dumb things and then tanking because of it is not an argument against capitalism. If it were the only local option run by the community (as would be in the most unrealistic and ideal anarchist worldview), you’d be here same as it is currently but your local community production would still be supporting that option. Bad leadership and dumb incentives are not the sole domain of corporate structures.