Split (1)

train · 6.74k rows

subreddit stringclasses 11 values	text stringlengths 246 28.5k
technology	The other thing I don't get is if this is legit and not another outrage where every company has to follow suit then why is Sarah jeong not gone? Candace Owens got temporarily suspended simply for copying what she said. Why does Richard Spencer have a Twitter account if everyone hates white supremacists so much? Why does Farrakhan? Etc... On on your other point about companies, it cracks me up that companies are piggy backing on these social justice warrior issues to try to market themselves to people that also apparently hate capitalism... Lol
technology	I understand that its legal to ban whoever you want. But redditor kamaria was commenting earlier whether or not its morally right for huge social media companies to insert their own political views into their platform. As I said earlier, imagine if your minority opinions on certain issues were being silenced by these companies. Where would you go? What reasonable alternative is there to facebook or twitter? I'm guessing your answer is "tough luck" but I don't think social platforms should work that way. I think if people are against certain content, they should downvote, or voice criticism. Every person has equal say. That way it's clear how the public feels about these issues. But if you, say, censor everything about the holocaust, then people will start wondering what was so bad about it, and why it was censored in the first place.
technology	> Then everybody will pretend to be non public niche forums, or cap their user count, or split up in a network of smaller sites. Good. >So you can't ban anything until a court ruled you get to remove it? Anyone. >How do you even define public account, Like I told you. It needs to be along the lines of "My name is Hillary Clinton, bla bla bla.." essentially a facebook page. If it is an anonymous account, like mine on Reddit, it would have no protection since no citizen is associated with it. Likewise companies would need to be protected along the same lines (only registered ones). >why wouldn't spammers hack them? They might, but security is a whole different concern.
technology	So you still took away all the big public forums, and Jones is in the exact same position as today - running a niche forum, being limited to speaking there since others won't let him in. You just reduced speech. But I can delete all their content even if I don't ban them, as long as I believe it's illegal? Or not that either, until ruled by court? Also, are topical forums prohibited from removing bad advice even if it's legal? What about impersonation? Can I require high security standards like ID verification + U2F hardware token for logging in? A spammer posting malware links I'm not allowed to remove until a court agrees is a major problem
technology	The question I have for you though is, what exactly in our rules and regulations today is causing this oligopoly of sorts? Because I don't really know if a 'non free market' is the problem. It isn't as if Youtube did anything -wrong- to get where it is, they simply grew popular, and then Google bought them, and now they're so enshrined in the public mindset that it's detrimental for content creators to go anywhere else. If anything, the fact that Google was able to buy themselves into power so easily is the problem. I say we should be enforcing anti-trust a lot more. The problem is that the market is -too- free, for corporations to just buy and merge until they own everything. The rules for this aren't good enough!
technology	> So you still took away all the big public forums, and Jones is in the exact same position as today - running a niche forum, being limited to speaking there since others won't let him in. You just reduced speech. No, because the idea that they'll split out on a thousand sites is nonsense, but if it does happen it's fine. That's how the Internet used to be and it was good for competition. >But I can delete all their content even if I don't ban them, as long as I believe it's illegal? Or not that either, until ruled by court? There will probably be some things you are allowed to shadowban right away, like child porn. Regulations are rarely written on a single page you know. >Also, are topical forums prohibited from removing bad advice even if it's legal? In a "slice your tires if you want to drive well" kind of way? Depends on their size and how political they are. >What about impersonation? Can I require high security standards like ID verification + U2F hardware token for logging in? As someone that works in the industry: I wish. >A spammer posting malware links I'm not allowed to remove until a court agrees is a major problem Again, there would have to be instances where things need to be hidden or whatever until a judgement is made. A spammer would be unlikely to always be a public account so it could easily be banned without issue.
technology	At some point, social media can craft what the majority wants, instead of serving what the majority wants. That's the nature of the real concern, not them serving their customers better. The very nature of what they do leads to incredible power over national opinion. It's too bad this issue has become a partisan divide, because while these companies appear to be on the "side" of democrats/progressives, they won't be for long or forever. They will serve their own interests. I could easily see these companies suppress articles or speakers trying to address strong privacy protections for US citizens, like GDPR, for example.
technology	Wow ok maybe you should just start with the dictionary you simpleton. The American right wing is the conservative party who are very anti-big government. Fascism is just a flavor of autocracy, Nazi is literally short for nationalist socialist. The American "right" is fundamentally different than in europe. What in the hell lead you to believe that you can fit all political thought on a one dimensional axis, and everyone is either left or right.
technology	Yes, but the problem is it's an oligopoly. Anti-trust was supposed to stop corporations from gaining this level of power. It didn't. Content creators are practically shoehorned into using these sites because they are the most popular. If (for some weird reason) you were an Alex Jones watcher, would you even think to go to dailymotion to watch his show? It is EXCEEDINGLY difficult to create alternatives to a market that is already largely captured.
technology	But this has always been a thing. Newspapers and TV had certain things they wouldnt publish for decades. Imagine going to a newspaper in the 80s, and trying to start a campaign to harrass victims who escaped the soviets, claiming it was a government cpver up. To the point where the survivors would get death threats. Newspapers wouldnt publish that garbage in general. Truth is, media has always chosen what to put out there, and what not to. That is a fact of life that will never change. Just like there will be other outlets for people to search for and release their view points on.
technology	>if I took a shit on the floor The bakery business model isn't facilitating floorshit, its baking. The social media business model is facilitating speech. >Some more stuff that basically comes back to their rules Well that really is the issue here, isn't it? Rules used arbitrarily and inconsistently that allow defacto social media monopolies to restrict discussion to what fits their corporate morality are bullshit. It's certainly not something that needs to be regulate or whatever, but I certainly think consumers should raise a fuss over it. It's not about what they can and can't do - I'm sure their legal team has their ass covered, it's about whether the public should be complicit in their own censorship. For the part that my own post was misleading before, I apologize, I wasn't trying to suggest there are legal issues with their decision.
technology	> it's about whether the public should be complicit in their own censorship. What, exactly, do you want here? A situation where the public must be forced to listen to everything, no matter how ridiculous? The idea that because social media involves talking to others, that they must be stalwarts of free speech is laughably dumb. And just because something is the most popular doesn't mean they have an obligation to be impartial. I wonder how you'd feel if I, say, went on info wars and started talking shit about Jones? Would they be obligated to give me a platform to say such things? No, I'd get banned. Because their site, their rules. But I bet you wouldn't say boo about that.
technology	How is it nonsense? Forcing them to not delete anything would turn everything into 4chan. Have you read up about adpocalypse? It's not profitable to host objectionable material on that scale, because you can't make money from ads on it, these not enough paying subscribers, and they still have to pay hosting and bandwidth. Best we can hope for is a federated web, making everything work like email. I don't even know how 4chan is funded. How would those regulations mesh with the first amendment? The government would literally be making laws about acceptable speech. Imagine somebody in my sub /r/crypto (cryptography) advocating short passwords and insecure cryptography algorithms. Or dangerous batteries on any electronics sub, or even straight up lying on /r/legaladvice. Or even posting off topic material and insisting it's relevant.
technology	But those sites he was thrown off of generate a large amount of visibility. Can you honestly say he would have been nearly as known if he didn't start putting shit out on social media? Again, not shedding any tears for him, but they helped him A LOT. The thing I'm trying to get you and other posters to take away from this is how much four or so companies have influence on the public mind and flow of information. Kicking someone off may not censor them completely, but it'll affect their voice in today's society A LOT.
technology	Well, not excactly true. While you Can get away with refusing service to any individual, if you exclude an entire Class of people, and the class you pick happens to be a protected one you can come up against federal law. The federally protected classes include: Race National origin Religion Sex Age Disability Pregnancy Genetic information Veteran status You're fine to discriminate against not protected classes however. For example, a common discrimination target is: people who are not wearing a shirt and shoes ("No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service"). Since clothing is not a protected class, this is legal!
technology	Like, saying things like #cancelwhitepeople and hoping that they go extinct, like, totally isn't support for genocide. Attempting to get someone murdered was an honest mistake. That is moronic. And Spike Lee DID contest the trial. He paid the couple $10K prior to the lawsuit and filed for a motion to dismiss when the couple later sued. That motion was granted because the couple had already accepted the money. While accepting that money was dumb on their part, I highly doubt they anticipated receiving death threats over a year afterwards and the inability to sell their home. >but he wasn't banned because of his politics, he was banned because Twitter thought it was a good financial move. The ridiculous "but what if they do it to the left, huh?" is an oxymoron: Capital protects capital. What do you think makes it a good financial move.
technology	For the record, I would have a lot less problem if we didn't have such an oligopoly of social media. It's like if you could only go to 5 restaurant chains country-wide, if you piss one of them off and get banned, you just lost 1 out of 5 choices for going out to eat. Maybe you did something really bad to deserve it, and that's fine, but what if the owner happened to be around and didn't like the way you dressed or something? A lack of competition is the real problem.
technology	That is your opinion, and that is great. I respect that. There are leftists who are espousing white genocide, as an example. This enrages me. But, it is my opinion that this is free speech. Twitter is not banning these people, and I think that in a free speech society, this is proper, as uncomfortable as it makes me. As soon as it is personal, against a person, that is not protected speech. As far as Alex Jones goes, I am not commenting specifically. I can't because I don't watch his shows. I know of him. I am not aware that he has called for violence against people. If he has, then I would need to know more about that in order to have an opinion. If he has told people to harass someone, then boohoo. Free speech. This is the line that, in my lifetime, I have witnessed being encroached upon, slowly but surely. We collectively have defined more and more things as being hate speech. And hate speech is a new term used to ban free speech.
technology	> there's a certain line of decency you can't cross... 50 years ago, conservatives fought to maintain censorship of material they didn’t like. Being gay, or trans, or distributing porn was over that line. > I have a general problem with big, multinational corporations controlling the information we can and cannot see. 50 years ago Liberals fought to make sure that didn’t happen. Now that it’s in their favor, Liberals fight to maintain censorship against opinions they don’t like.
technology	> So you think its the first time somebody was doxxed? No. Nothing in what I wrote would lead you to that conclusion. > Not true either. Irrelevant. > Where am I moving the goal posts? By saying bullshit shit like “you think that’s the first time someone has had X done to them?” Your initial statement was a complete lie and you knew it. Now you’re trying to justify that outright lie by saying it’s no big deal because other people have been harassed. > Clearly all the previous times people were doxxed, it wasnt considered “immediate danger” enough for them to get banned on social media. Irrelevant. Your first statement WAS A LIE and you know it. This is moving the goalposts. Alex Jones doxxed the parents of a murdered child and publicly told people to go harass them. It doesn’t matter if it was done before, Twitter had enough and banned him.
technology	> How is it nonsense? Forcing them to not delete anything would turn everything into 4chan. No, it would not. 4chan is anonymous. >Have you read up about adpocalypse? It's not profitable to host objectionable material on that scale, because you can't make money from ads on it, these not enough paying subscribers, and they still have to pay hosting and bandwidth. The adpocalypse was a giant clusterfuck of advertisers that went into a panic because Google did not curate which videos got advertisements. >How would those regulations mesh with the first amendment? The government would literally be making laws about acceptable speech. I live in the EU so I am not really sure. >Imagine somebody in my sub /r/crypto (cryptography) advocating short passwords and insecure cryptography algorithms. Or dangerous batteries on any electronics sub, or even straight up lying on /r/legaladvice. Reddit is anonymous. If they don't do the whole "I am Hillary Clinton" thing then you can freely remove them. If they do that whole routine... Well then you can call them out publicly. >Or even posting off topic material and insisting it's relevant. Personally I think the law should only take political subreddits into account.
technology	It's not like Facebook is known for high quality despite supposedly real names. It's not like big name advertisers would touch even the clean sections of 4chan. Also, some of the complaints even from FCC's Ajit Pai explicitly targets monetization, implying it's unfair that some people can't get ad revenue - even if it's because the advertisers are the ones refusing, not the host. Not to mention, forcing them to host material that can't get ads means you're forcing them to subsidize the distribution objectionable material. Even in EU I don't think such regulations would work well. Especially since it's so hard just to figure out in which jurisdiction you even should report bad moderation. The Donald is political. Would be ironic to see them unable to ban dissenters.
technology	>shit talking Jones on infowars Nah, I'd be pissed too if they banned you. I wouldn't think as pressing an issue because it's a niche audience compared to the market share of the other sites we've mentioned, but that's an equally shitty move. If people didn't already have enough reason to be mad at him, his complicence with censoring others while he is presumably whining about others doing the same should infuriate everyone. Now, if you were shit posting in a forum dedicated to a particular topic, I'd be fine if your post were deleted. Heck, if you kept trolling with off-topic posts, I don't really care what you're posting, that's fine for a ban too. But, if there is an area that's supposedly open for general discussion, you can theorize that Jones is a crisis actor all day long and I'll back you up against a ban. Twitter doesn't have different forums for different things. >Their site their rules I'll reiterate - I have a problem with their rules, not with them enforcing them. I'm glad they are enforcing them in Jones' case so people will discuss why these rules are concerning. How far do you take freedom of association? Do you go so far as allowing racial discrimination? If not, why? There is precedent for thoughts as a protected class in religious protections - shouldn't political opinion also be protected?
technology	There's nothing hypocritical about a private organization choosing to kick out someone who violates their rules, which is the cheered on by everyone else present. He has a clear history of harassment and threats against others. If this was any other private setting, like an office or a bar, he'd have been kicked out a lot sooner. I'm not sure why you think Twitter owes him a platform. The reason why people were pissed at gays getting kicked out for getting a cake is because they didn't behave in any disruptive way, it was about who they were, even though they're not a protected class and I believe the owner should have the right to not serve at will. Others like Kim Davis tried that too, but don't get that right as they were serving as public officials.
technology	Missing the point. An ISP blocking you prevents their entire customer base from reaching you, many of which have no options. If your ISP blocks a site, you have to switch ISP. If no alternative exists, somebody must dig down cables and get permits so they can carry that traffic. If a site blocks you, you click a link to get to another site. Or you buy a computer as a server to run your own website, so other people can reach you there.
technology	That isn't an argument against what I've said. That is an argument against these small number of social centers that have evolved over the last 15 years. It's not going to change. We do see new companies breaking into the tech space, and usually if they're good enough to stick around they are either purchased or copied until they are indeed part of the centralized internet. I would be curious what part of that comment you thought made any kind of argument against mine.
technology	No. I literally don’t understand what the hell is wrong with you people. This man doxxed the parents of a murdered child and told people to harass them. Publicly. Using a platform that explicitly states you’re not allowed to do that shit under the threat of being banned. You act like twitter/Facebook/YouTube just didn’t agree with his politics and decided they didn’t want contrarian opinions on their platform. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people where you think this is a logical comparison to base and argument on?
technology	Should everyone be given a free phone as well? Since you need a phone to manage anything? There are tons of alternatives. He can make his own website and people can listen to him there. It sound like you just think everyone should be forced to listen to everyone, even people like AJ. Should a grocery store or gas station not be allowed to ban anyone from their store if the next one is an hour away? What about Wal Mart? If you are banned from Wal Mart and the next one is 1.5 hrs away what do you do? Just Google "listen to Alex Jones". You'll find a lot of ways to hear his voice.
technology	> It's not like Facebook is known for high quality despite supposedly real names. 'course not. >Not to mention, forcing them to host material that can't get ads means you're forcing them to subsidize the distribution objectionable material. They're doing it for freely today. >Even in EU I don't think such regulations would work well. Especially since it's so hard just to figure out in which jurisdiction you even should report bad moderation. Local court -> Regional court -> National high court -> European court. >The Donald is political. Would be ironic to see them unable to ban dissenters. It would, wouldn't it? :)
technology	>should everyone be given a free phone Don’t see the relevancy to the conversation >there are tons of alternatives Not any that reach the mass majority >it sounds like you think everyone should be forced to listen to everyone Nice strawman. Never once hinted at that viewpoint. I think everyone (who doesn’t incite violence or break the law) should be given a platform and the people should be allowed to make their own intelligent decisions on what they want to watch. They shouldn’t be told what is “correct” and “incorrect” to watch. >Should a grocery store or gas station not be allowed to ban anyone from their store if the next one is an hour away? What about Wal Mart? If you are banned from Wal Mart and the next one is 1.5 hrs away what do you do? Another irrelevant argument that contributes nothing to the conversation
technology	Corporations are basically their own little government dictatorships. The irony that we love the freedom to run our own businesses is that we then go and run it like a dictator and give no freedoms to your subordinates. Granted, you can move freely between private governments, that doesn't stop these governments from doing shady or illegal activities. Imagine if you wanted to change the world in your image and you were also a good busueiness man. The business you create is secondary to your primary goal of influencing the world. Your private government is just a tool to empower yourself to unlimited heights. Jeff Bezo's likely doesn't care that he's delivering products that people want/need, but that doing so makes him wealthy and powerful. His american dream is to become a king and rule over his subjects. And that's why they will always fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. If bezos is treating his workers like slaves he likely has contempt for the underprivileged and people like him, when push come to shove, will unleash a fury we have never seen before. This is literally history repeating itself. The revolution in Russia after WWI is eerily similar to today's circumstances, albeit us lay people have better material conditions. If you read that history you know how it devolved into a civil war. Ever since then, the communist party was relentlessly attacked by by its diametric opposition and the capitalist class. Initially it had nothing to do with building a totalitarian oppressive society. But the constant threats and attacks by the capitalist class caused a guy like Stalin come in and take extreme measures. Unfortunately, the capitalist class was able to use that against the entire ideal of workers owning the means of production to wage a full on war. The American capitalist class seized the opportunity to attack anyone who was against privatization, with impunity, up until the Vietnam fiasco where people started asking questions. That's why a lot of our corporations helped Nazis until they got out of hand. The Nazi's made capitalism look bad and so they had to go. And if you wonder why anarchists and modern communists want violent revolution its because they know that the Bezo's, Tumps, DeVos's and Clinton's will never back down without expending all their resources. And their resources are Private Paramilitaries, Gangsters, CIA, NSA, law enforcement agencies, weapons manufacturers and a whole army of right wingers who will fight along their side because they won't understand how everything is orchestrated at a higher level.
technology	Is there any proof of this besides the lawsuit? I read the same group that had made a lawsuit before against another "conspiracy theorist" mysteriously dropped it after it made the news. Since the conspiracy theorist was basically shamed into hiding for questioning the wrong things. Anyways I hear a lot about Alex jones and sandy hook and I sort of go a long with it bevause how dare he, yet when I stop to question things it gets messy
technology	> Also taking down the most objectionable material. They really aren't. Alex Jones is not the most questionable material on Youtube or Twitter by a long shot. They only took him down for PR. >Comparable to newspapers, just because they sometimes allow it, that doesn't mean it's reasonable to force them to always do it. Again, shouldn't we force newspapers to tell the truth or at the very least correct their lies? Fake news was not something Trump invented. >What would the local court even do if the website doesn't host in your country? They'd be bound by EU regulation. Usually they would be forced to comply or force extreme penalties. GDPR scares companies for good reason.
technology	This analogy is not appropriate. To be more accurate would be "now imagine if you are banned from delta and United and 3 other airlines". You would still be able to get across the country, it would just be harder. Do you think airlines should be forced to allow someone to travel if they are often drunk and disruptive? There are plenty of ways for AJ to spread his message without Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc.
technology	objectionable to advertisers The also take down things like ISIS propaganda, even the ones that's technically legal. Jones made himself a liability. He's both breaking their rules and hurting their profits via advertisers that leave, and making for bad PR and much more. Freedom of speech goes very far. It's very very hard to force a newspaper to do anything*, they often aren't required to correct anything unless damages can be proven. I'm from Sweden myself, and even here that process is 99% voluntary, and there's extremely few things that ever goes to court (mostly defamation claims). https://www.mprt.se/en/broadcasting-radio-and-tv/online-publication/ https://www.mprt.se/en/broadcasting-radio-and-tv/requirements-and-regulations/ - note the restrictions on who is bound by the various rules (most of them apply almost exclusively organizations that rely on public infrastructure or government funding) Also, forcing you to speak the truth would destroy satirical papers
technology	>speech is protected from the government, not business Of course, but I think we should consider freedom of speech for social media platforms because the entire point of these platforms is to speak to each other. Say we reach a future where people rarely go outside and social media becomes the only real way to speak to anyone. At that point, no real freedom of speech exists. Im suggesting we consider ways to counter any possibility of this. It is also important for the present day simply because these social media platforms dominant anyone’s ability to speak. Consider this, cell services are businesses, yet they are treated as a public service, allowing you to txt anyone anything you want without repercussions. Why should social media be treated any differently?
technology	There should be laws and government agencies (with 100% transparency) to ensure that information censorship only happens when it is a function of misinformation and hate speech. In today's age, we can no longer protect lies under the First Amendment. I'm not talking about opinions, I'm talking about verifiably false statements of fact. All claims should be accompanied by sources or reasoning. Then for statements which aren't black and white, but there is a consensus, the government should mandate that the consensus is presented alongside the claim (parenthetically). Having to equivocate when they lie and produce sources would slow down these astroturfers, conspiracy-theorists, and fake-news sites a considerable amount.
technology	Google "listen to Alex Jones". He is far from being silenced. Some platforms banned him, so he can just use other ones that are just as easily accessible. Anyone who listened to him before can still listen to him. He can make his own social media website and anyone who followed him before can still follow him. He can hold his own events. The internet is massive, it always will be.
technology	Going with your conspiracy, Google may have a cookie tracker somewhere in the mix, but the only way that they could prevent you from going anywhere on the Web is if: a) info wars uses Google hosting services, and they refuse service to them (which they might). Solution: IW uses a different host (or self hosts) b) Google blocks IW on search (Possible). Solution: Navigate directly to the site. c) you use Google DNS to connect to the Internet, and Google unlinks them (pretty unlikely unless they get forced to). Solution: Use a different DNS. d) Google blocks access on chrome (possible, but unlikely). Solution: Use a different browser. So if Google does decide to block IW, then all you need to do is type i n f o w a r s . c o m directly into Firefox, safari, opera, Edge, or let's be honest and remember the target audience, internet explorer 6 with half a dozen toolbars.
technology	>*objectionable to advertisers I know, there's still plenty of stuff out there that makes Alex Jones seem quite civilized. > Freedom of speech goes very far. And that's a good thing. >It's very very hard to force a newspaper to do anything It is. But they should have some responsibility shouldn't they? >Also, forcing you to speak the truth would destroy satirical papers It really would not. Typically satire is obvious.
technology	Did you read it? How was I lying? My first statement was that he didn't illicit immediate danger. I don't consider doxxing putting people in immediate danger because it has never been considered that way before. There have been tons of cases where people have doxxed and literally told their followers to harass them, yet faced no legal ramifications. It's clear that in the legal sense, it often isn't considered "immediate danger"
technology	> Free speech is great but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Never, Draw a line and someone will figure out how to move it. In the end you'll end up like the UK, with people being sent to court over offensive jokes and rap lyrics, or even simply singing certain American songs in private that have the 'N word' in them. Never give an inch. Either you have full freedom of speech, or you don't have freedom of speech at all. It's a zero sum game.
technology	Some people make it sound like if there's ever any time or place or venue in which they aren't allowed to say anything they want, any way they want, to any one they want, then it's some sort of censorship. They tend to think "Free Speech" means no restrictions ever, for any reason, by anyone. The story this guy you're replying to is trying to spin makes it sound like it's a form of oppression that Apple will kick a hate-speech-pushing, sandy-hook-denying blowhard off their platform because they don't feel like making room for him in their store. And people like you are seeing through the argument for one simple reason: It doesn't make sense.
technology	Yes there is. When every hosting company refuses to host your content, when nobody will act as the ISP for your own webserver, when nobody will act as the registrar for your domain, you're stuffed. It's all ok - for now - but only because the companies are only using this power against literal nazis. Just you wait until it's used against websites promoting _your_ political views. The world has changed, everyone forgot why some forms of censorship were made illegal, and history will repeat itself in a slightly altered form.
technology	So you're not all for treating this on a case by case basis. >Would you feel the same way about the hypothetical idea of rounding up and executing all 'bad' people, without due process? What the fuck obviously fucking not. >if we don't have confidence in the logic of "most people are smart enough to know the truth" for executing people, why should we consider that same logic robust enough with consideration to the matter at hand? Because it's not the same fucking thing. Different assertions require different degrees of evidence for reasonable things anyway but since getting deplatformed is nowhere near as dire or serious as fucking executions it's super fucking simple to see that this is an absolutely moronic false equivalence.
technology	So if I doxxed and you had to move seven times because of it, you wouldn’t consider that immediate danger? AFTER your child had been murdered and some asshole encouraging violent and mentally ill followers to harass you doesn’t constitute dangerous people following you? That doesn’t equal immediate danger to you? Are you an Alex Jones follower? Because the bullshit falling out of your ignorant mouth puts you squarely in line with the kind of mentally ill people who excuse his behavior. Why are you enabling Alex Jones to harass the families of murder victims? And child murder victims at that.
technology	Oh, don't get me wrong, Alex Jones was in the wrong here. I think private businesses should have the right to kick people out. You don't get to just do whatever you want and threaten people. If anybody earned it, it's him. I wouldn't entirely refer to that as censorship in the strictest sense. What I DO have a problem with is everything being consolidated into a few tech companies. If you lose your voice on all of them, it can severely hurt you. I think what it's going to come down to is breaking everything up or starting up enough alternatives, so if some of them start to get too tight with the rules for one's taste, we can move to others. I think that's a better solution than demanding that everyone must have a platform on every site no matter what.
technology	But as it currently stands they are both private companies who can choose their customers and what they will allow their infrastructure to be used for. If you use the internet to check your emails or tweet or upload a video to youtube you are using someone else's hardware infrastructure. If those companies control the majority of traffic through the hardware and algorithms then they intentionally or not hold a monopoly on content distribution. >ISP's should be public utility. Search engines, websites and hosting platforms should not. It's amazing you can't provide ample arguments and just think your take on it is final. It's also amazing that you didn't actually read what I said. I said, I didn't state that Google or FB should be a utility, just that they should act in good faith or be regulated somewhat. If big tech wants to censor lawful content let them be regulated. The internet is the single most powerful source of education the upcoming generations will have access to. It is not like big tech can be compared to any other business like a bakery or a sports store when they are influencing billions at some level.
technology	>But as it currently stands they are both private companies who can choose their customers and what they will allow their infrastructure to be used for. If you use the internet to check your emails or tweet or upload a video to youtube you are using someone else's hardware infrastructure. Of course. >If those companies control the majority of traffic through the hardware and algorithms then they intentionally or not hold a monopoly on content distribution. All it takes is 51%? What do you mean by traffic? Total bits? Persons? How are you measuring this? >It's amazing you can't provide ample arguments and just think your take on it is final. I don't. I was pointing out the OBVIOUS difference between an ISP and a private company. >It's also amazing that you didn't actually read what I said. I said, I didn't state that Google or FB should be a utility, just that they should act in good faith or be regulated somewhat. If big tech wants to censor lawful content let them be regulated. They are regulated, you just want compelled speech. >The internet is the single most powerful source of education the upcoming generations will have access to. It is not like big tech can be compared to any other business like a bakery or a sports store when they are influencing billions at some level. Agreed.
technology	Yeah, they can tell where you're going, but that doesn't stop other vendors from dealing with you (unless said vendors also do not want to deal with you). Even so, you can build your own car, and draw your own map (since you can build your own servers, host your own stuff, and DNS is handled through IANA, which is ICAAN). Again, Google will see where you go, since in this increasingly tortured analogy, they have built cameras all along the trail. That's kind of shitty, and I would prefer they didn't, but ultimately if they're refusing to deal with you, they're gathering advertising data for someone they wouldn't even be selling to.
technology	Since you do not consider exploiting some ones ignorance a form of harassment then hell, lets play ball. =) When I checked your post history I didnt see any complaints about the lies that lead to the war in Iraq and the 109,000 dead humans those lies lead too (66k civilian). At least be consistent. I dont have time for silly false outrage bs. Yeah it may be in fashion these days but so too were crocs at one point and really you can only look silly in those things objectively too. Alex Jones is an idiot and what you pointed out is a matter of civility. It is not a reason to censor and start walking free speech back or placing it in the hands of corporations once they monopolize technology, that virtualizes natural occurrences, such as human interaction. There is a particular reason in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 it grants immunity to internet companies for the actions of their users. Which is strange they now use the same argument you just did because their corporate rights don't extend to Jones under the law and are holding him accountable for his viewers/"users" actions. Why do you think they pressed to have such protections under the law? Even if every ounce of me disagree's with Alex Jones, as I strongly do. I have watched with my own eyes what happens to dissenting voices, I know where it goes from here. I understand deeply the value of free speech and what an open and free internet mean's to the possibilities of the future. Some will say this is not an open internet issue it is about corporate rights which is correct. However these sites are built on top of a foundation which has fundamental principles that must be changed in order for these companies to be granted such powers that supersede a persons rights as a citizen as the technology they create blends into the society as a whole. This is a very complex issue and not as simple as you wish to believe. Your arguments are not even your own its simply a regurgitation of the justification that has been given which to me isnt that far away from believing in the headline "UFO hits wind turnbine" void of both logic and reason.
technology	>They are regulated, you just want compelled speech. I want compelled free speech regulations so that content not violating the law cannot be hidden deceptively or removed without evidence of breaking the TOS of the platform. I want the TOS for content to be made clear so that hate sdpeech cannot be used as a means to remove any non-conforming content. But good luck getting any law through senate which favours the consumer and gives protections.
technology	They are able to do it, it doesn't mean they aren't censoring you or stifling your ability to freely express yourself if they decide to do it for political reasons, instead of for financial reasons like a public company typically does. Infowars was making FB ad money, kicking them was ideological. The constitution cannot grant you rights you already had, it prevents the government from violating them. Rights are inherent and self evident. The government here theoretically protects them if the it follows that committment to respect your rights. Currently the US does not respect the rights of companies to do business or freely associate as they please, they hold them to a series of legal commitments. I believe companies ultimately should be able to freely associate, but Facebook only believes that when it lets them censor people they find distasteful.
technology	First- calling his bizarre conspiracy theories 'dangerous lies' seems is a bit odd. Is he crazy? Sure. But he is essentially a non-interventionist to the point of near pacifism. So I assume what you mean by dangerous is that he isn't warlike enough against our enemies which makes us unsafe? That he doesn't want to kill enough people? Like Hillary, McCain, George Bush, etc? Second, listening to crazy people is so entertaining. You're taking that joy away from people to make the world a worse place.
technology	No it won't. > Alright, so if everybody starts banning people the free market allows a provider who won't ban people to thrive. You don't realize the capital needed for that today. Nor the terrible reputation it would get for housing controversial banned figures/communities. That's why tech sites are all following suit and banning this guy, none of them wants to be "that site" hosting controversy. PR is a huge deal now more than ever, and sites catering to the banned communities will never "thrive". They will at best survive, because the majority of people will avoid them like the plague due to said reputation.
technology	Yelling fire in a crowded theater can cause a panic which can lead directly to death. It's specifically a situation in which action must be taken before thought because if there is a fire you don't have time to ask questions. Normally people are responsible for their own decisions, but yelling fire in a crowded theater doesn't give people time to think so it undermines their own responsibility for their actions. Just like holding a gun to someone's head gives them some reprieve from punishment if you make them hack into a bank vault or whatever. A loss or blurring of autonomy is involved. Jones did nothing like that. He didn't endanger people, he didn't cheat people out of money (as far as I know, who knows about these pills), and he didn't threaten anyone with physical violence. So yes there's a line. We've discussed and established that as a society. Jones didn't cross that line. What's happening here is a redrawing of the line. Perhaps we think that's okay because these are private corporations and not the government, but that's different than saying Jones violated the few speech limitations we already have established as a country.
technology	>Like, saying things like #cancelwhitepeople and hoping that they go extinct, like, totally isn't support for genocide. Link me whatever tweet you're talking about. Let's see what she was responding to, and in what tone! I'm sure it'd be very educational. Still not quite sure why you find some random comments made years ago by an intern on social media so threatening. White fragility, I guess? > Attempting to get someone murdered was an honest mistake. That is moronic. It was (presumably) an honest mistake. A stupid one, sure, but well-intentioned. Unless you have some evidence showing that he actually was trying to give out the address of that random couple? That seems like a ridiculous assertion. >What do you think makes it a good financial move. That he did it? I've got an MBA, but I'm not the CEO of one of the most influential companies in the world, nor do I have access to their internal research, so I could only make uninformed guesses.
technology	>Link me whatever tweet you're talking about. Let's see what she was responding to, and in what tone! I'm sure it'd be very educational. No. This stuff isn't obscure or hard to find. You called me a liar for stating a fact and then proceeded to just make some bullshit up about Spike Lee. There is no honest mistake about. He attempted to tweet out out the address of the most hated man in America at that time. His entire feed blew up with people talking about showing up and killing Zimmerman. It was clamoring about that before he even tweeted the address. The couple had to flee. He knew what he was doing and that is why he did it. He wanted to bring harm against Zimmerman. There is nothing good in that. Furthermore, Lee himself has literally stated "I don't know what my intention was". So what the fuck are you talking about, "well-intention" The last part was rhetorical. It's a good PR move because of Jones's politics. I pointed out hypocrisy. You then proceeded to blabber about things you have no idea about while calling me a liar. Now apparently I have "white fragility". Listen to yourself. You won't even expend the minimal amount of effort it takes read and have a coherent opinion.
technology	> No. This stuff isn't obscure or hard to find. You called me a liar for stating a fact and then proceeded to just make some bullshit up about Spike Lee. Yeah, didn’t think so. This is what happens when your primary news sources are InfoWars and The Gateway Pundit. >He knew what he was doing and that is why he did it. He wanted to bring harm against Zimmerman. Yes, Zimmerman, not the random couple. That’s why I called it a mistake. And come the fuck on with nothing good in that... he’s not at the top of the list of people who have it coming, but he’s definitely in the upper five percent or so. Whatever someone might have done with his address wouldn’t be anything he didn’t deserve. >I pointed out hypocrisy. You then proceeded to blabber about things you have no idea about while calling me a liar. Now apparently I have "white fragility". Listen to yourself. You won't even expend the minimal amount of effort it takes read and have a coherent opinion. You look ridiculous, could you at least try to stop being sooo emotional? Not a single link, no evidence, just your hurt feelings about poor mister Zimmerman and white genocide. Like how can someone get through life being that defensive? I can’t imagine being so upset and threatened by five-year-old tweets from a random person in their early twenties who reviewed iPhones.
technology	Because I have the time: >Like, we both know that you're lying and that isn't a real thing Wrong. https://twitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Sarah.jpg This one is just from google images, there are a shit ton of tweet compilations if you just google her name. This one just has two of the tweets I alluded to. There is much much more. >And Lee publicly apologized, was sued and didn't contest the trial, and paid restitution. Wrong. "Lee’s attorneys filed a motion Tuesday to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Elaine and David McClain. Lee’s attorneys argue the lawsuit should be dismissed since the couple reached a $10,000 settlement with Lee last year." https://www.apnews.com/a72307b852fb4352a08c7065686528ed > A stupid one, sure, but well-intentioned Wrong. “I did a stupid thing,” Lee says. “I don’t know what my intention was.” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/12/spike-lee-tweet-trayvon-martin-twitter_n_4256158.html >Yes, Zimmerman, not the random couple. That’s why I called it a mistake. And come the fuck on with nothing good in that... he’s not at the top of the list of people who have it coming, but he’s definitely in the upper five percent or so. Murder is bad. I don't even. >This is what happens when your primary news sources are InfoWars and The Gateway Pundit. I don't go to InfoWars and I do not even know what Gateway Pundit is. >You look ridiculous, could you at least try to stop being sooo emotional? Not a single link, no evidence, just your hurt feelings about poor mister Zimmerman and white genocide. Like how can someone get through life being that defensive? I can’t imagine being so upset and threatened by five-year-old tweets from a random person in their early twenties who reviewed iPhones. I'm not being emotional. I've been more civil than I should be. Nothing about Sarah Jeong is threatening to me. I chose her because she was recently in the news for those tweets. Most people know at least some of the things she has said. It makes for an easy example of political bias in Twitter's (and others) banning process. Anti-white racism and tweeting out addresses is tolerated. I more or less agree that banning Jones is a good business/PR move. It's a good move because of his politics though. All of that was about my statement of: >What Alex Jones did was wrong and you can believe he deserves to be banned. But you are kidding yourself if you think he wasn't a target because of his politics. None of that is about some fear of Sarah Jeong. And just for the record, I wouldn't want her banned for saying those things. I'd prefer that the government pass legislation to make speech on big media platforms protected within reason.
technology	This is actually a good thing. In the past to get security updates to legacy systems MS had an large-enterprise-only paradigm. Now small companies can A) get in on legacy updates, B) provide some financial incentive to MS to keep updating. Really smart and consumer friendly approach to extending the life of legacy systems. What makes it better is sometimes huge flaws are found in past OSes that affect newer ones as well. This is going to put money straight into the security pipeline.
technology	Okay well, home users should be on Windows 10 already. This is /r/Technology so I’m not expecting a lot of love for this point of view but ultimately support was already supposed to end and Microsoft has no obligation to support a 10 year old OS. Apple only supports the most recent version (silently updating older ones) Canocial only updates the last few LTS releases which come out every 18 months. In fact, Microsoft has actually been pretty decent at patching XP, etc, after the fact when the vulnerability could be widespread and devastating. I know of no other vendor that goes back this far to correct vulnerabilities. At best you might get 3-4 versions back of OSX/macOS getting an update. On the other hand businesses who need time getting off 7 may have a much easier time by paying for updates. Budgets are a lot easier to set for updating as the options are out there to upgrade or face update costs. With this Microsoft will help further shed their “vulnerable” reputation, which has always been more about market share and improper updates for years now.
technology	Not at all. When a convict gets out of prison, You do not see a sign on him saying that he was in prison. When you meet him he does not look much different than any other person. This allows the ex-convicts to be rehabilitated and integrate back to society and have their lives back. But imagine if they'd have this giant sign on top of their head "I was in jail for robbery" anywhere they'd go. Would they ever be able to get a normal life? to get a job? to build a family? They already served their sentence. Why punish them for the eternity? This is what "right to be forgotten" means. Unfortunately politicians and corporations take this concept and apply to themselves, which was never the original intent of this concept. It should not apply to politicians and corporations. We should never ever forget the terrible things they did.
technology	Again though, the problem isn't that other people are remembering, it's that the publications are being informed about ongoing investigations and trials. That's not something that gets addressed by 'right to be forgotten', instead it just lets you scrub things that mention your name from the Internet, but that doesn't really prevent someone from looking you up with effort. After all, if something gets printed in a local paper that stuff gets archived in a library somewhere usually... it's just hard to search for. But less so than it used to be since such records tend to be scanned digitally these days.
technology	Almost no one, apparently. Every time I argue that "right to be forgotten" will only be a right for those entities that can afford the lawyers to enforce it, I get downvoted into oblivion. Of course this new "right" won't apply to the little people. Who is going to enforce it? It will be enforced exclusively through the courts, which is an enforcement mechanism that will exclusively be used by the wealthy.
technology	Funny you say this. Monticello, a medium sized town just north of Minneapolis voted to put municipal broadband in back in 2006ish. TimeWarner(?), the at the time monopoly for the city sued saying it was a waste of taxpayer dollars. They were able to get a court order halting the roll out of municipal broadband while they upgraded their network to hand the speed municipal was going to offer. Eventually the city won and rolled out their fiber network but they were delayed about a year in doing so. I hope the entire town switched over as a huge FU to TimeWarner. If I had access to Google Fiber, Municipal, and the SpaceX version coming in the mid 20s I'd pay for all 3 just so I could give comcast the finger. *Edit for spelling
technology	I think OP mean literal Garbage service? The reason places get a general contract for an entire neighborhood is to cut down on massive/heavy vehicles doing damage to the roads. A fully loaded semi does more harm to a highway than 9,000 cars do. I'm sure side streets are even worse. Having 1 garbage truck a week vs. 4 or 5 driving on the roads means your 'normal' car wear and tear numbers are lowered by the equivalent of about 1.9 million cars per year.
technology	When I went to drop off my cable boxes to Time Warner there was a huge line of people paying and I just dropped them off next to the counter and said I cancelled. The dude behind the counter pointed to the line and asked me to wait, I laughed in his face and walked away. This was about 10 years ago, I assume the guy behind the counter understood how shitty of a company they were because I never had an issue but after reading all the horror stories here I probably would have made sure they scanned everything in.
technology	I live in an area with municipal broadband. The entire project looked like a total failure because of Comcast's ability to tie up funds and stall with litigation. It took about 10 years for the project to break even, but it's all worth it to see the look on a Comcast salesman's face when I tell them what they have to compete with (I get gig up and down for $48/mo, no data caps). I can even get 10 gig speeds for $179/mo. I will advocate for municipal broadband and competition until it is everywhere.
technology	Yes, perhaps, but he's is screwing people in a generational way, he's not rich enough to insulate himself from public scorn, he still lives in a regular house, among the general public and he is a pariah wherever he goes. It's one thing to be a billionaire like the Koch brothers that rarely if ever see the people who despise them, but he's not rich like that and will have to eat public crow for some time to come. Even his coworkers think he's corrupt. There's no way people who lost their homes in california and had firefighters unable to communicate because of throttling will be able to avoid spitting on him if they see him in public.
technology	Competition and right-of-way are most important. If the leaders of a municipality are blocking either of those, at least you can vote them out. >Ultimately, fixing any of these problems will require local, state, and federal leaders to stand up up to big telcos and do what's right for the public. And that means they need to hear from the public. You might not be able to vote for better internet with your wallet. But if your representatives won't enable the internet market, you can always still vote at the ballot box. https://www.wired.com/2017/04/want-real-choice-broadband-make-three-things-happen/
technology	I used to own and run an ISP and I currently work for a utility and the problems with that article are more than I can get into. It's someone from the outside whose heard a couple buzzwords putting an article together. I'll address this: > The problem? Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost. For example, rights of way and pole attachments fees can double the cost of network construction. 1. It's totally correct for the government to charge a markup to an external company for the use and wear off their property. The author is confused: government isn't charity. But the revenue from such charges reduce the overall costs to the individual consumers. That's if there really is that kind of markup which I've never encountered. But that's probably because I know the costs on such things. It's not just the material but also the maintenance and legal issues and agreements with law enforcement to help keep our right of ways and easements accessible. A lot of homeowners will bar access to their backyard when their neighbors are having a problem and then the sheriff has to help -- that's not free. There's also inspections and depending on the equipment they're may be preventive maintenance like cutting back vegetation or spraying for bugs. At any rate, laying that off on local government is stupidly rediculous... At least in central California. Other markets may be more susceptible to this but most markets have a "last mile" charge from ISPs because that last mile is owned by the local Telco and they're the ones driving up the costs. I've seen that a lot and they government isn't responsible for that.
technology	I genuinely think that these people believe that anyone in the same position would be doing the same thing. That's why we see so much protection from the GOP, and why you see the Trumpers so vehemently following him. They genuinely don't see a world in which people fight for what's right over what's good for them. That and honestly believing that wins must come at someone else's cost. So you have this group that's essentially built around screwing over as many others because then they must be improving their own odds, and feeling good about it because anyone would do it.
technology	Been trying to resolve constant disconnects for over a year with cuntcast. After all my home troubleshooting I determinded it was either the drop, or the node. Well, 9 months of bullshit, cunts telling me to power cycle and "I'll send a high priority refresh signal," non-sense, and multiple modem changes they finally send out a senior tech (2 had come previously). Sure enough, it was the node. But guess what? "We'll have to keep an eye on it, there's some interference coming from a house up the road." Ok? So here I am over a month later with no change at all. I really wish there was some other ISP in my area.
technology	That's pretty tin foil hat. But the result is the same: Access to high speed internet is a better predictor of economic growth in a country than level of education, average income, access to health care and social services, or vehicle ownership. Anyone who knows a goddamned thing about economics knows fast internet is essential to economic development. Pai isn't selling is out to foreign powers, but the result is the same: We've lost our competitive edge and our economic future.
technology	fuck those ISP-funded fucking political pieces of shit. I wish ISP's could just fuck right off and be outlawed completely - at this point it's like charging extortionist prices for clean water or food. Everyone needs it at this point, and it's _really easy_ for the government or local municipalities or states or whatever to provide it (even saves government money, AND makes them money at the same time!), it makes citizens happier and more educated in general. The U.S. and Canada are so fucked up right now.
technology	Telstra owns the network but has to resell it to any ISP at cost. Anyway the government built the copper network Telstra was using in the 20s before it was privatised. You can only get ADSL2+ out of the majority of it which is like maximum speeds of 20/8Mbps. Those speeds aren't really viable in the real world and that's with new copper not 100 year old copper Telstra didn't bother maintaining because the knee the government would pay if they let it break. The network is almost 100 years old and needs to be replaced so the government paid Telstra to decommission their network and sell them access to the hatches to build a new network that was going to be fibre to the premise for 92% of Australians. Anyway we switched parties and the new government said that was too expensive so switched to a technologically inferior multi technology mix which ended up being even more expensive and now we need to build it over again before it's finished because it's all fucked. Then one of our ISP tried to build their own fibre network in our capital cities to just apartments because that's the most profitable way to build a network but the government needs those to make the new network closer to profitable so they outlawed that. They plan to privatise the new network so we can enjoy rebuilding at tax payer expense when the new owners don't maintain it.
technology	Telstra owns the network but has to resell it to any ISP at cost. Anyway the government built the copper network Telstra was using in the 20s before it was privatised. You can only get ADSL2+ out of the majority of it which is like maximum speeds of 20/8Mbps. Those speeds aren't really viable in the real world and that's with new copper not 100 year old copper Telstra didn't bother maintaining because the knee the government would pay if they let it break. The network is almost 100 years old and needs to be replaced so the government paid Telstra to decommission their network and sell them access to the hatches to build a new network that was going to be fibre to the premise for 92% of Australians. Anyway we switched parties and the new government said that was too expensive so switched to a technologically inferior multi technology mix which ended up being even more expensive and now we need to build it over again before it's finished because it's all fucked. Then one of our ISP tried to build their own fibre network in our capital cities to just apartments because that's the most profitable way to build a network but the government needs those to make the new network closer to profitable so they outlawed that. They plan to privatise the new network so we can enjoy rebuilding at tax payer expense when the new owners don't maintain it.
technology	They compartmentalize it. They are just doing a job. If they didn't do it, someone else might. They aren't doing anything illegal (yet...or that we know of). And he's on his ways to earning "Fuck you" money. It's for his family, it's for their future, etc. Also, I suspect he isn't faced with with actually seeing the lives he ruining. It's easy for people to shit on other people when you don't have to see or interact with them on a daily basis.
technology	You're not trying to engage in proper, mature discourse. Immediately attacking people without question is always bad, and only serves to consolidate the perception of an ideological division between the attacked and the attacker(s). Consider that /u/Grumpieroldman knows what he means (Grumpier, I hope you do read this. What you have to say, and your experiences DO matter, despite what some may say) in his comment, and that we know what the discussion in this thread is all about. I agree with him, the municipal service for picking up/transporting garbage/trash in some towns is of the utmost shit quality, often pushing things too far. This is his personal anecdote of how a public service can be bad for the consumer. Based off of this experience, I can understand why he might be aggravated by the idea of municipal ISP. Starting off your response to him by explaining why this doesn't mean public = bad would have been a better, constructive reaction. He might not have come to the conclusion that the quality of a municipal service is determined by votes on a local level, and that he DOES have a voice in whether it'll improve or not. If you don't like how a municipal service is going, your vote matters when it comes to how that service is run. If he already knew this, he may have just made the connection. In which case, a polite reminder or hint at how this works can go a long way.
technology	And smaller Fiber companies that are being blocked by big cable companies that lobby the laws to block them... 'US Internet' a fiber based ISP, is working with Verizon on a project to attach signal amplifiers all over the city and surrounding suburbs. These things would make it possible to get a good wifi connection literally anywhere in and around the city. Why are they doing this? Because cable companies haven't established a monopoly on it yet and it's a good idea.
technology	Yes. Fire fighters couldn't communicate because they were throttling their service. People rely on the internet to make phones work and get information to families and emergency personnel when their phones don't work during large scale emergencies. So yes, this does affect people's life and property. If he's putting money over people's lives it's very much similar to a greedy company choosing diamonds over people. People will likely die in the future if we let this continue. It's not all about Facebook and Netflix.
technology	yes and no. We started to build a fibre NBN, then the right wing government came in and decided that instead of going all fibre, we would instead spend the same amount of money on making our DSL and cable internet better. (They literally bought the cable internet off the incumbent - telstra - and started spending billions of dollars upgrading it, they have abandoned that plan now but I digress). The initial plan was basically replace Telstra owning all the wires (and subleasing to other ISPs) the government effectively bought-back all the copper pairs, bought out the cable internet and in a small number of cases is building a fibre network. Then that company (NBN Co) is only allowed to wholesale out connections. So ultimately we are following the model that was described. We haven't completed the network yet though, so there are still many homes and businesses on DSL (partially) over telstra equipment. NewZealand on the other hand had their Fibre NBN and stuck with it and are now doing great things. (Its worth noting, that about 50% of people buying internet from vendors on the NBN go with Telstra still - incumbents got some pretty good mind share)
technology	I don't think you realize that "blood money" doesn't mean "blood diamond money". It CAN mean that I suppose, but it just means compensation for someone's untimely death. It's only a matter of time before people die from lack of communication. It happens in every natural disaster. No deaths have been tied to throttling yet, but it will, because it's already proven to be very dangerous for the Santa Clara Fire Dept. At least a couple people tend to die in every major fire we have. The second Pai realized that these policies have real world consequences, he should have changed his tune, but no, he still cares more about money than people's lives and homes.
technology	I really want to but I've seen it go sideways. Town I used to live in years ago was small and they tried to pull it off. They had to charge something like $150-200 per month and they never got enough subscribers for it to be sustainable. It didn't last long at all. That little town was successful at sustaining itself on so many fronts and keeping the big guys from corrupting what they had. They even got rid of the police traffic cam that was screwing people left and right, and fought against the local police when their corruption and laziness came to light. But when it came to fighting the ISPs monopolizing their lines, it was an impossible feat. Smaller towns that can't afford it are going to remain in the clutches of these greedy ISPs.
technology	Not to discount how great your internet is, but I feel the need to point out that ping isn't really the best metric. A fiber-optic cable run directly from NYC to LA will only get you 50ms at best, and when you consider that a real connection would literally never be run over a single cable you're actually looking at several times that as a best-case. You have 15ms ping because those games have datacenters nearby, not because your connection is good, and ISPs only do the last mile of service anyway; if your connection is traveling any significant distance it's doing it on lines that all the ISPs in your area share.
technology	I lived in Monticello for a couple years and subscribed to the municipal broadband. It was awesome, internet only for $45/month, 100mb up and down. Option to go up to gigabit, but it was more than I needed and more than I wanted to spend. Not sure about TimeWarner suing, I thought Monticello had been monopolized by TDS Metrocom (a regional cable company) but when I got there Monticello Fibernet, TDS and Charter were the options. Both Municipal and TDS had fiber to the house. Now I live elsewhere and have only Charter to choose from.
technology	One stopped by my house about 3 days after I moved in. He left with a look of dread as I told him all my neighbors are switching too. I live in Utah, look up UTOPIA utah. There are some caveats: pay $2750 up front, or pay a roughly $30/mo connection fee. So that $48 becomes $78. If you look at the link (if I can post them) you'll see pricing. Competition is good. https://www.utopiafiber.com/residential-pricing/
technology	>If Corporations want to be viewed as citizens with the argument that they're made up of people, then they should allow the people that make them up to have equal say in what the company does. Sounds fair. >Instead, they want it both ways, to be viewed as a private citizen and to not be held to the same standards that private citizens are. Pretty much. It's basically the executives who want to be seen as people and be given those rights on a company-wide basis, but they don't want anyone below them to get to make decisions that would hurt their money.
technology	I'm happy for you guys and glad your local government sorted itself out and represented it's constituents. I live near Rochester, NY, they tried to do the same thing (passed a regulation that all city/road works would lay fiber optic any time the ground was opened). Time Warner sued to prevent them from offering it to the public as being "unfair" and they would be unable to compete and won. So now the city has tons of fiber underground, but only government/police/fire/libraries can use it. Real infuriating.
technology	I'm actually with you. Everyone else replying to you seems to be riding the sociopath train just because Pai is verifiably a puppet/asshole. But I doubt that. He probably loves his family and has things he cares deeply about, and denies that his actions are harmful to vast numbers of people (even though they are). There really aren't that many bureaucrats who drink tears. I'm reminded of Eichmann. Yes, that Eichmann. The one who pushed the paper that kept the death camps running, but who nearly fainted and had to leave when he actually visited one. So I'm with you: what's his justification? It doesn't actually justify, but surely he has one.
technology	NZ was pretty bad before too (still pretty bad the further you get out of a city) then we started getting fibre directly into each home. No BS copper cables halfway. New suburbs a going straight fibre now, no copper at all so everyone can get ~900mbs if they buy the correct plans. ~~I believe AU is rolling this plan out as well, you have more land and population so the project will definitely be significantly more intensive and time consuming.~~ Nope, sorry, your Govt has it's own budgeting/being cheap problems... Either way, the current lack of quality internet is due to dated infrastructure. While the USA also has dated infrastructure, they also have ISP's that monopolize districts and refuse to upgrade (even if the tax payers pay them billions to do so).
technology	Sortof, now you contact your retail service provider, who then contacts NBNCo to fix faults. I had a fault that took 3 months and 4 site visits before I pointed at my HFC lead-in and the tech jumped on my roof and found that it had been scraping on my roof and after 7 years had worn through the sheath. All in all I was dealing with the worst game of poor customer-service broken-telephone. Before the last tech came out my RSP was almost trying to reset me back to the beginning. "Theres nothing we can do to help you - its your computer" (despite the dropouts happening on the NBN provided device before my devices were even involved!). TLDR; we have replaced Telstra with NBN Co, the only benefit being they aren't competing with the ISPs asking them to fix their shit. If the technology had been better then the issues I experienced (and many others) just wouldn't have been so hard to fix.
technology	Apparently, they had a plan. Guess it didn't pan out. The most outrageous bit is that a company like Google, with their deep pockets, is getting pushed out and held up by Comcast, ATT, and company. I remember seeing a map that showed Comcast offering gigabit in mostly places Google managed to roll out their fiber gigabit. Ironic eh? What isn't gamed by these fuckers these days. Lobbying to prevent municipal in multiple areas as well. So much money to prevent others, but not increase their own infrastructures that was already supported with taxpayer money.... Nothing to see here. Move along...
technology	We had such restrictions that Comcast and CenturyLink helped put in place, but thanks to a devoted group of citizens, it was overturned in local elections and then eventually we ended up with the nation's fastest broadband. $50/month flat for 1Gbps fiber. :) Comcast and CenturyLink tried hard to prevent it, and _now_ they've finally upgraded their services, just not enough. Hopefully nobody's giving in and going back to them, though.
technology	How are they not the same thing? Crony capitalism is the end game of unregulated capitalism, and of regulated capitalism in any market with corruption, including lobbying. The only place that "free market" capitalism doesn't devolve into crony capitalism is a strongly regulated state with strict anti-corruption measures, and that's an unstable equilibrium. Ultimately, like so many things, capitalist economies only really work with periodic renewal or replacement when the rot gets too deep.
technology	You are put into a room with a button. You are told that every time you push the button you would get $1m USD worth of currency that can be freely exchanged to whatever currency you want. The stipulation is that every time you push the button someone else dies. For every time you push the button there is a greater chance that the authorities will immediately be directed that you murdered people, and you will be immediately throw into jail for homicide. This can happen on the first button press, or it could happen on the 1,000th, but it will happen eventually if you push the button enough. &#x200B; What do you do? If you push the button, how many times? Does this change if the button has a greater chance to kill people in your state? What about your city? Now what about your neighborhood?
technology	You don't understand what Municipal run broadband is. > USI Wireless funded, built, and manages the wireless network. The City allows USI Wireless to use its light poles, traffic signals, and facilities to mount wireless network equipment throughout the City’s 59 square miles. Compare this to what Chattanooga has: >EPB, also known as the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, is an American electric power distribution and telecommunications company owned by the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee. In 2010, EPB was the first company in the United States to offer 1 Gbit/s high-speed internet. Unless the City of Minneapolis owns USI, it's not municipal broadband.
technology	Basically what happened is Verizon is such a shit company, they sold some Cali fire depts shitty plans. THe depts were told they were unlimited. But it's the consumer "unlimited" after X amount of gigs, hard throttle. When called about the issue, instead of saying, oh emergency services? yeah lets fix that right away, Verizon had them upgrade their data plan before they could un-throttle, fires raging, and they want to upsell their fucking data plans.
technology	> You don't understand what Municipal run broadband is. I really do. You just don't understand what the Minneapolis program is. Despite the cute sound of "US Internet paid for it" that you copied, it really did not. The city of Minneapolis paid a large sum up front for the cost of setting up the network along with the million plus dollars a year the city spends for their roughly 100k internet bill. The city is paying for and subsidizing this internet service and it doesn't even offer competitive internet for anyone. >Unless the City of Minneapolis owns USI, it's not municipal broadband. The city of minneapolis is paying for the broadband, which makes it municipal. Without the city payments it wouldn't exist.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.