BigBallinStalin wrote:Dukasaur wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Another deadweight loss due to the prohibition on market exchanges for sex.
I think in this case it's more of a loss due to rent-seeking on arrangements of letters to form names.
I'm not 100% sure to be honest. It seems the lawyers reacted because there are repercussions for offering sex in market exchanges (BJ for Legos). If trading sex was 100% legit, then Twitter might have stomped the competition so that they aren't mistaken as a sex trade website.
Why do you think it's rent-seeking?
They're restricting freedom of expression because it might impact their revenues.
If I buy a box of legos, I should be able to do what I want with it, including secure the services of a prostitute. But their marketing people look at it, they see that there might be an increase in sales to people like me, but there will be a decline in sales in Pawfucket, Massachusetts because the Puritans will get their petticoats in a twist and refuse to buy legos for their grandchildren.
After a quick calculation, they realize that there's a hell of a lot more moralistic jam-tarts in the world than there are hookers who accept lego payments, and sales might go down as much as 3%. That's enough reason for them to go to court to nip this new social phenomenon in the bud. Since they can't directly control what I do with my lego, they will (through the courts) engage in censoring public discourse between me and the hookers.