How the FCC's repeal of net neutrality could affect Apple

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 103
    macwise said: Get rid of burdensome rules and regulations, and lean startups can take the market by storm. 
    The airlines were deregulated in 1978 in the United States. Are there more major carriers now than in 1978 or less? Less. 
    fastasleep
  • Reply 62 of 103
    lorin schultz said:

    All of that may be true, but I'll take my chances with government and rules because I don't want to have to take a sword or gun with me just to get to work without someone trying to steal my shoes or eat my face. I don't disagree that majority rule sucks, but there are so many anti-social people in the world that it's just not practical for everyone to be their own police force, product tester, educator, and infrastructure builder. For all its flaws, and all the mistakes it makes, representative government is still better than anarchy or authoritarianism.
    So you are saying you'll accept the real, daily consequences presented by a mafioso who takes 50% of your property every year, robs more innocent people than all home burglaries combined, kidnaps more of your fellow members of society than any other government on earth, spies on you and everyone you know, uses your money to bomb innocent women and children in countries you've never visited and which are no threat to you, threatens private companies you use with violence in order to get them to share your private data with government so they can circumvent the laws that were put in place precisely to avoid such collusion, empowers mega corporations to exercise monopolistic control on markets, refuses to hold its own (police, prosecutors, judges, military, legislators, etc.) responsible for their crimes, squanders the funds which they claim are being collected to help the unfortunate or needy....instead of taking responsibility for yourself because there's a POTENTIAL risk of having a pirate emerge who might do ONE or TWO of these things to you?

    I think you need to revisit your understanding of reality. Let's start with Anarchy: anarchy simply means "no ruler". It doesn't mean no rules, nor does it mean no responsible citizens. If you tell me right now that the only reason you don't murder, thieve, or engage in violence is because the law says not to, then perhaps you have a point. But then again, for all the onerous laws we currently have in this country, we still have all those things. In countries where drugs are decriminalized, for instance, drug use goes down (along with the connected violence, illness, overdose, addiction, death, etc). How does one explain that, other than to note that it's quite apparent that the more you dictate what people can and can't, should or shouldn't do, the more you drive them to stop thinking for themselves and their own well-being. Civil society isn't about forcing people to be good. It's about allowing people to live freely, and taking responsibility for yourself to keep yourself free.

    Perhaps it's less about the laws, and more about the fact that people aren't naturally inclined toward violence, deception, or oppression. Perhaps, it's only this artificial mechanism we've come to rely on so heavily (government) which augments our natural inclinations so they stray from self-preservation to simple leeching off of others because we don't have to face someone down directly in order to steal their property or limit their freedom. We would certainly see a lot less theft of other people's money if those receiving government "rebates" had to go door-to-door with a gun in hand and demand the money themselves instead of getting a tidy little check in the mail. What is civil about theft, even if the guns are only implied (so long as you aren't dumb enough to question or disobey)?
    lowededwookie
  • Reply 63 of 103
    asdasd said:

    Of course some taxes are totally wasted, like the taxes for continuous wars. In general Republicans support all those wars. And government expenditure there often is spent overseas. Some taxes are very useful for a sane and normally functioning society. In fact this very internet we are discussing originated via government funding. 
    Republicans AND democrats support the wars we get into. This is a historical fact. And referring to taxes spent on the defense budget as "some taxes" when it is the government's single biggest expenditure is either dishonest or misguided (at best). At any rate, I don't care if 99.9999% of Americans think it's a good idea to blow up babies in the middle east or elsewhere. That doesn't make it civil or ethical. 

    Are you saying we wouldn't have the internet without the government? I assume you also believe roads never existed without government as well, yeah?  😂😂😂
    cgWerks
  • Reply 64 of 103

    macwise said: Get rid of burdensome rules and regulations, and lean startups can take the market by storm. 
    The airlines were deregulated in 1978 in the United States. Are there more major carriers now than in 1978 or less? Less. 
    😂😂😂

    Here, eat this:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/how-airline-ticket-prices-fell-50-in-30-years-and-why-nobody-noticed/273506/

    You can make anything look bad if you are unwilling to look at all factors. And your claim needs a citation, since I see no evidence that there are fewer airlines (with regional and point to point carriers) than there were in '74. 

    At any rate, if I have to agree that a massive fare drop and an incredible increase in connections is proof that deregulation is a bad thing, then I'll concede: removing government's influence is hoooooorrrrible! ;)

  • Reply 65 of 103
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,182member
    macwise said:
    > Bad government

    Redundant.
    But, without rules and regulation (kind of the purpose of government), there would be a whole other set of problems. You can't understand what a free market is until you properly understand human nature. Having no rules and regulations wouldn't work. 
    This is the sales pitch of government. Also the mafia. "Pay us to protect you from the pirates. If you don't pay, you'll see our own pirate side." ...
    ...good rules and regulations...a government that isn't being bought by the corporations (or trying to achieve their own selfish agenda).
    "Good" in this context is about as subjective as "favorite food", or "favorite movie". There are literally billions of opinions on what makes a government or policy good or bad. Democracy in this sense is a lie. It is violence, only more masked. If 51% say they have a right to life, liberty, or property of 1%, so it is. There is nothing moral, just, or inherently "good", about it, nor does there need to be — it simply "is", because the majority says so. In a "republic" where representatives swear to represent the group, it's even worse, since it only takes a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the group in order to commit the same offense against one or all. 

    We have been lied to. If a pirate comes along to harm or hinder me, I am championed when I conquer him with a swift bullet to the face. But should that same pirate approach while wearing a badge, then my neighbors go from hosting a parade in my honor to calling for my hanging. 

    Government is only ever about its own selfish agenda. Governments never fully mature until they maintain leverage against every single citizen they claim in their jurisdiction. Don't believe me? Just look at history. It'll back me up.
    Bad human nature -> humans involved in governments -> bad governments. But, put humans in *anything* and that bad comes right in there with it, including your own ship.

    The USA government has many mechanisms to keep human-nature in check. We've gotten lazy and not held them accountable or forced them not to collude with corporations. That's the problem. While we'll never get rid of all the bad, it could be much, much better.

    re: sales pitch of government - the government (in USA anyway) is supposed to be by, of, and for the people. If it becomes it's own self-serving, bad entity, we really have ourselves to blame. It shouldn't be this 'other' entity to have a sales pitch in the first place. The purpose of government is to encourage good and punish bad, ensuring our inalienable rights. That doesn't mean government is bad, but that it is failing to do its job. (Which is collectively, our fault.)

    And, no good and bad aren't subjective. The ideas on how to get there might vary, but the outcomes are pretty obvious. A democracy isn't a great idea either, as you've stated. But, the USA isn't just a representative government, but a Constitutional one. The Constitution is what keeps the outcomes good. The problem is that we've let the government run wild and corrupt, and allowed postmodern reader-responsive interpreters of the constitution to be appointed to our judicial positions.

    We'll never achieve perfection, but we could do a heck of a lot better than your pirate scenario.

    asdasd said:
    Of course some taxes are totally wasted, like the taxes for continuous wars. In general Republicans support all those wars. And government expenditure there often is spent overseas. Some taxes are very useful for a sane and normally functioning society. In fact this very internet we are discussing originated via government funding. 
    It isn't just Republicans (though Republicans have been heavily involved). The candidate opposing Trump was one of the most war-happy people to run in decades. It has more to do with perspective on how America stays in power and backs the various 'interests' than party. Look what we did to Libya, Syria, etc. under Obama. And, that plan was set into place just days after 9/11. If anything, Trump (a semi-republican) has at least thrown a few monkey-wrenches in that plan (ex: pulling the CIA out of Syria, where they were supplying the terrorists).

    spice-boy said:
    Corporations only lookout for themselves, Governments represent the citizens' interest... Each of these times Government unleashed the capitals to their on devices and their greed got them and us in a pickle. 
    Corporations, somewhat like people or families, are going to tend to prioritize their own self-interests. When they cross certain lines, that's when government is *supposed* to step in to either enforce regulation or prosecute criminal actions. The problem is that we've allowed the corporations (and huge special interests) to buy the results they want by bribing our elected officials (without holding said officials accountable).

    The really sad thing is that if the voting populace were paying much of any attention at all, we could actually fix it. However, the window is closing as the corrupt government gradually changes the structure that was put into place to keep the corruption at bay.
  • Reply 66 of 103
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,182member
    macwise said:
    So you are saying you'll accept the real, daily consequences presented by a mafioso who takes 50% of your property every year, robs more innocent people than all home burglaries combined, kidnaps more of your fellow members of society than any other government on earth, spies on you and everyone you know, uses your money to bomb innocent women and children in countries you've never visited and which are no threat to you, threatens private companies you use with violence in order to get them to share your private data with government so they can circumvent the laws that were put in place precisely to avoid such collusion, empowers mega corporations to exercise monopolistic control on markets, refuses to hold its own (police, prosecutors, judges, military, legislators, etc.) responsible for their crimes, squanders the funds which they claim are being collected to help the unfortunate or needy....instead of taking responsibility for yourself because there's a POTENTIAL risk of having a pirate emerge who might do ONE or TWO of these things to you?

    I think you need to revisit your understanding of reality. Let's start with Anarchy: anarchy simply means "no ruler". It doesn't mean no rules, nor does it mean no responsible citizens. If you tell me right now that the only reason you don't murder, thieve, or engage in violence is because the law says not to, then perhaps you have a point. But then again, for all the onerous laws we currently have in this country, we still have all those things. In countries where drugs are decriminalized, for instance, drug use goes down (along with the connected violence, illness, overdose, addiction, death, etc). How does one explain that, other than to note that it's quite apparent that the more you dictate what people can and can't, should or shouldn't do, the more you drive them to stop thinking for themselves and their own well-being. Civil society isn't about forcing people to be good. It's about allowing people to live freely, and taking responsibility for yourself to keep yourself free.

    Perhaps it's less about the laws, and more about the fact that people aren't naturally inclined toward violence, deception, or oppression. Perhaps, it's only this artificial mechanism we've come to rely on so heavily (government) which augments our natural inclinations so they stray from self-preservation to simple leeching off of others because we don't have to face someone down directly in order to steal their property or limit their freedom. We would certainly see a lot less theft of other people's money if those receiving government "rebates" had to go door-to-door with a gun in hand and demand the money themselves instead of getting a tidy little check in the mail. What is civil about theft, even if the guns are only implied (so long as you aren't dumb enough to question or disobey)?
    I guess I'd vote for fixing the government rather than getting rid of it. Why do we allow the government to do all the things from your first paragraph?

    I'm with you, somewhat, on laws not being able to make people good. The founders of the USA even said so. Laws are based on morality. Morality isn't defined by the laws. I totally agree that we've got that all backwards these days. But... it's also important to recognize that the masses seem influenced by the law. So, if something is legal, they think it moral, and if it's illegal, they sometimes at least weigh the penalty into their risk/reward ratio. (But, this is a problem more with education, secularization, etc.... but that's a whole discussion of it's own.)

    re: "fact that people aren't naturally inclined toward violence, deception, or oppression" Totally disagree here. As you said in one of your previous responses to me... I present you with history! Unless there is a base of civility, government, and morality... people are naturally inclined towards violence, deception, and oppression. We're riding on the coat-tails of centuries of moral progress (certainly with some dark points), and now suddenly think we can just toss it all away w/o repercussions.

    And, I think if you traveled to many places around the globe, you would find exactly that... those with guns and might going door-to-door and taking as they please. I'm not defending the government doing it either... but the government is setup such that it isn't the necessary outcome. We've allowed it to go that corrupt... or, in some cases, wanted it to. (Again, I can give you a bunch of USA founder quotes who predicted just that.)


  • Reply 67 of 103
    Why isn't Anonymous doing anything about this?
    cgWerkstallest skil
  • Reply 68 of 103
    adm1adm1 Posts: 767member
    starflyer said:
    spacekid said:
    Before net neutrality: "AT&T eventually relented in October of 2009, announcing it would allow VoIP calls via its 3G network. It came as the FCC threatened increased pressure on ISPs who violated net neutrality principles, even before they became the commission's official rules." "Under pressure from customers, and amid the prospect of federal intervention, AT&T relented in late 2012, and enabled FaceTime over cellular for all users with compatible iPhones and mobile data plans." Seems market and political pressure can shape things. The FCC believes the FTC is a better place to control these unfair practices which the media and political hyperbole have ignored.
    This 1000x.   
    Exactly, this piece was so blatantly pro-net neutrality (anti-trump more likely). The points made even show that when companies tried the admittedly hypothetical scenarios, they backed down before any rules were put in place. More lefties that need to just get over it and get on with it; you'll likely have your chance to reverse everything again in a few years time anyway.
  • Reply 69 of 103
    adm1 said:
    starflyer said:
    spacekid said:
    Before net neutrality: "AT&T eventually relented in October of 2009, announcing it would allow VoIP calls via its 3G network. It came as the FCC threatened increased pressure on ISPs who violated net neutrality principles, even before they became the commission's official rules." "Under pressure from customers, and amid the prospect of federal intervention, AT&T relented in late 2012, and enabled FaceTime over cellular for all users with compatible iPhones and mobile data plans." Seems market and political pressure can shape things. The FCC believes the FTC is a better place to control these unfair practices which the media and political hyperbole have ignored.
    This 1000x.   
    Exactly, this piece was so blatantly pro-net neutrality (anti-trump more likely). The points made even show that when companies tried the admittedly hypothetical scenarios, they backed down before any rules were put in place. More lefties that need to just get over it and get on with it; you'll likely have your chance to reverse everything again in a few years time anyway.
    Opposition to repealing net neutrality legislation has nothing to do with anyone's position on Trump. It's about what's best for you and me.

    It's true that neutrality was maintained before the rules were made tougher, but only because government agencies threatened repercussions. It is not true that everything was fine without government intervention. In fact, the reason the rules were created in the first place is that a provider said "screw this"and fought the government in court. That brought an end to the quiet detente that existed before NN legislation, and made the legislation necessary.

    The argument that legislation is not required to maintain net neutrality because it worked in the past completely ignores that the situation has CHANGED. It changed when Verizon fought the government in court. The conditions that existed prior to 2015 are now gone. Repealing the 2015 legislation does NOT just put us back where we were before.
    SolicgWerkssingularitymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 70 of 103
    cgWerks said:

    re: "fact that people aren't naturally inclined toward violence, deception, or oppression" Totally disagree here. As you said in one of your previous responses to me... I present you with history! Unless there is a base of civility, government, and morality... people are naturally inclined towards violence, deception, and oppression. We're riding on the coat-tails of centuries of moral progress (certainly with some dark points), and now suddenly think we can just toss it all away w/o repercussions.
    While I can appreciate that there are violent tendencies in normal folks found in societies, I encourage you to take a look at history to see the hugely disproportionate amount of violence coming from a relatively few men or women in power — the folks at the top. You can't fairly attribute the violence from the masses to the masses if they were threatened, manipulated, or starved in order to manipulate them to engage in said violence. 

    Once you take that into account, it quickly becomes apparent that productive, thriving communities opt for peace and cooperation naturally since it serves everyone's interests most effectively. Propping a few (megalomaniacal) men above the rest only results in people seeking those men out to inflict injustice on their neighbor — and they unironically do it in the name of justice. This disproportion and misappropriation of "authority" only serves to divide those who might well cooperate otherwise. Again, I'm not claiming we'd have a perfect utopia without government. And perhaps we have even needed government in past eras. But certainly it is clear that the main goal of government (notwithstanding the goal of those who claim to support it) is to grow until it has endless power and control over every soul in its domain. This is as true for "constitutional republics" as it is for dictatorial communist regimes such as the DPRK.

    After all, point to any of the "rights" defined as protected in the bill of rights, and I'll show you how every single one of them is being grossly violated today by the government you claim should be restrained by them. You say it's the laziness of the citizens which allows this to occur, and in that I do not disagree. But that isn't the complete picture. The rest of the story is as I've written above. The government IS its own entity, and no matter how small it starts, it always grows until it is toppled by its own copious spending, or by a total revolt (at great cost of lives and property) by the slaves it violently lords over.

    Humanity is closer than it ever has been in understanding that personal responsibility trumps all, and this government was founded on the novel idea that personally responsible citizens, when largely left to rule over themselves, thrive and thereby help the society — as a whole — thrive. It worked for quite a while to show us the incredible possibilities that could come by accepting this one principle, but it was always to be overshadowed by the presence of the thing we couldn't quite let go of: government. It's only a matter of time that we figure out that no matter how benevolent or benign the propped-up entity appears to be in the beginning, it will always become what we here in America have today (which is essentially the opposite of what the founders envisioned and attempted to create) and worse. Rule of law cannot help average citizens when the government operates by its own laws, laws to which we have no access as non-elevated rulers. It's a stacked game, and that will never change. But the main reason men seek to behave badly is because the people beg for it. Once we demand to be left alone and seek to remain free to tend to our own responsibilities, a massive revolution will happen unlike anything humanity has seen before. Again, not a utopia, per se, but certainly a massive advancement in productivity, peace, and mutual prosperity. 
    edited December 2017
  • Reply 71 of 103
    macwise said:
    cgWerks said:
    macwise said:
    ... If you think government is the solution to allowing smaller, more localized regional players to rise up and thrive, then you're not paying attention. Government is the REASON huge corporations with massive monopoly force are a thing. Get rid of burdensome rules and regulations, and lean startups can take the market by storm. ...
    Bad government is the reason. But, without rules and regulation (kind of the purpose of government), there would be a whole other set of problems. You can't understand what a free market is until you properly understand human nature. Having no rules and regulations wouldn't work. The key is to have good rules and regulations, and a government that isn't being bought by the corporations (or trying to achieve their own selfish agenda).
    > Bad government

    Redundant.
    But, without rules and regulation (kind of the purpose of government), there would be a whole other set of problems. You can't understand what a free market is until you properly understand human nature. Having no rules and regulations wouldn't work. 
    This is the sales pitch of government. Also the mafia. "Pay us to protect you from the pirates. If you don't pay, you'll see our own pirate side." Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather risk dealing with pirates than playing games with the pirates who got sneaky and put on guns and badges and more expensive suits. And for the record, I've been robbed by real pirates. And while the amount of personal property they stole from me was not insignificant (~$10k), it pales in comparison to the property government pirates rob from me every year. 
    ...good rules and regulations...a government that isn't being bought by the corporations (or trying to achieve their own selfish agenda).
    "Good" in this context is about as subjective as "favorite food", or "favorite movie". There are literally billions of opinions on what makes a government or policy good or bad. Democracy in this sense is a lie. It is violence, only more masked. If 51% say they have a right to life, liberty, or property of 1%, so it is. There is nothing moral, just, or inherently "good", about it, nor does there need to be — it simply "is", because the majority says so. In a "republic" where representatives swear to represent the group, it's even worse, since it only takes a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the group in order to commit the same offense against one or all. 

    We have been lied to. If a pirate comes along to harm or hinder me, I am championed when I conquer him with a swift bullet to the face. But should that same pirate approach while wearing a badge, then my neighbors go from hosting a parade in my honor to calling for my hanging. 

    Government is only ever about its own selfish agenda. Governments never fully mature until they maintain leverage against every single citizen they claim in their jurisdiction. Don't believe me? Just look at history. It'll back me up.
    All of that may be true, but I'll take my chances with government and rules because I don't want to have to take a sword or gun with me just to get to work without someone trying to steal my shoes or eat my face. I don't disagree that majority rule sucks, but there are so many anti-social people in the world that it's just not practical for everyone to be their own police force, product tester, educator, and infrastructure builder. For all its flaws, and all the mistakes it makes, representative government is still better than anarchy or authoritarianism.
    I actually agree, although I’d modify that to “constitutional representative government”. The problems that exist today come about because the representatives don’t follow the Constitution and the People have little means of correcting the offenders in a time-sensitive manner.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 72 of 103
    macwise said:
    cgWerks said:
    macwise said:
    ... If you think government is the solution to allowing smaller, more localized regional players to rise up and thrive, then you're not paying attention. Government is the REASON huge corporations with massive monopoly force are a thing. Get rid of burdensome rules and regulations, and lean startups can take the market by storm. ...
    Bad government is the reason. But, without rules and regulation (kind of the purpose of government), there would be a whole other set of problems. You can't understand what a free market is until you properly understand human nature. Having no rules and regulations wouldn't work. The key is to have good rules and regulations, and a government that isn't being bought by the corporations (or trying to achieve their own selfish agenda).
    > Bad government

    Redundant.
    But, without rules and regulation (kind of the purpose of government), there would be a whole other set of problems. You can't understand what a free market is until you properly understand human nature. Having no rules and regulations wouldn't work. 
    This is the sales pitch of government. Also the mafia. "Pay us to protect you from the pirates. If you don't pay, you'll see our own pirate side." Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather risk dealing with pirates than playing games with the pirates who got sneaky and put on guns and badges and more expensive suits. And for the record, I've been robbed by real pirates. And while the amount of personal property they stole from me was not insignificant (~$10k), it pales in comparison to the property government pirates rob from me every year. 
    ...good rules and regulations...a government that isn't being bought by the corporations (or trying to achieve their own selfish agenda).
    "Good" in this context is about as subjective as "favorite food", or "favorite movie". There are literally billions of opinions on what makes a government or policy good or bad. Democracy in this sense is a lie. It is violence, only more masked. If 51% say they have a right to life, liberty, or property of 1%, so it is. There is nothing moral, just, or inherently "good", about it, nor does there need to be — it simply "is", because the majority says so. In a "republic" where representatives swear to represent the group, it's even worse, since it only takes a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the group in order to commit the same offense against one or all. 

    We have been lied to. If a pirate comes along to harm or hinder me, I am championed when I conquer him with a swift bullet to the face. But should that same pirate approach while wearing a badge, then my neighbors go from hosting a parade in my honor to calling for my hanging. 

    Government is only ever about its own selfish agenda. Governments never fully mature until they maintain leverage against every single citizen they claim in their jurisdiction. Don't believe me? Just look at history. It'll back me up.
    All of that may be true, but I'll take my chances with government and rules because I don't want to have to take a sword or gun with me just to get to work without someone trying to steal my shoes or eat my face. I don't disagree that majority rule sucks, but there are so many anti-social people in the world that it's just not practical for everyone to be their own police force, product tester, educator, and infrastructure builder. For all its flaws, and all the mistakes it makes, representative government is still better than anarchy or authoritarianism.
    I actually agree, although I’d modify that to “constitutional representative government”. The problems that exist today come about because the representatives don’t follow the Constitution and the People have little means of correcting the offenders in a time-sensitive manner.
    Lol. Magic piece of parchment hasn't done jack to stop our government from becoming demonstrably worse than the one it was meant to replace. England looks relatively tame compared the atrocities perpetrated by our "constitutional representative government" today. When will we collectively accept that the experiment has failed, and we're nothing more than a few hundred million boiled frogs?
  • Reply 73 of 103
    macwise said: Get rid of burdensome rules and regulations, and lean startups can take the market by storm. 
    The airlines were deregulated in 1978 in the United States. Are there more major carriers now than in 1978 or less? Less. 
    There is no monopoly airline. At some point equilibrium is reached until the next major industry shakeup. For long distance travel, there will be competition soon enough from SpaceX operating point to point on Earth spaceship travel for the cost of a full fare economy class ticket (according to Elon Musk). And for short travel there are Hyperloops and self-piloting flying taxi drones that are already being tested and soon will be deployed.
    macwise
  • Reply 74 of 103
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,182member
    Why isn't Anonymous doing anything about this?
    Mom sent them to their room with no Internet for a while.

    adm1 said:
    Exactly, this piece was so blatantly pro-net neutrality (anti-trump more likely). The points made even show that when companies tried the admittedly hypothetical scenarios, they backed down before any rules were put in place. More lefties that need to just get over it and get on with it; you'll likely have your chance to reverse everything again in a few years time anyway.
    No, they tried them and then backed down due to public pressure *combined* with the threat of regulation. I complained to Comcast for years when they were messing with my VoIP packets, with no effect. It wouldn't have changed w/o that threat as I was too small of a use-case... the only thing public outcry might have 'fixed' was Netflix.

    macwise said:
    While I can appreciate that there are violent tendencies in normal folks found in societies, I encourage you to take a look at history to see the hugely disproportionate amount of violence coming from a relatively few men or women in power — the folks at the top. 
    ...
    Once we demand to be left alone and seek to remain free to tend to our own responsibilities, a massive revolution will happen unlike anything humanity has seen before. Again, not a utopia, per se, but certainly a massive advancement in productivity, peace, and mutual prosperity. 
    I sympathize with a lot of what you wrote. And, power corrupts, or at least magnifies the corruption. In that regard, I suppose I am somewhat a libertarian.

    But, I also understand too much about human nature to see that working w/o a certain level of government (both local and national). We may not agree on that aspect, given your last statement. Too many see us 'progressing' towards being more and move 'civilized' in our behavior... but just consider things like texting and driving or some of the behavior we're seeing on campuses these days.

    While we've achieved much in terms of technological advance, medicine, and general civility in many of our laws... don't forget the basis on which that was founded (of which we're losing, IMO). In fact, I think society is degrading in the West, so we're actually going to see harsher government, law enforcement, etc. attempting to stave off the inevitable chaos (unless people start to wake up and change).

    macwise said:
    Lol. Magic piece of parchment hasn't done jack to stop our government from becoming demonstrably worse than the one it was meant to replace. England looks relatively tame compared the atrocities perpetrated by our "constitutional representative government" today. When will we collectively accept that the experiment has failed, and we're nothing more than a few hundred million boiled frogs?
    The problem isn't with the piece of paper, but with postmodern interpretation and ideology. What do we hear our politicians saying these days.... that they vowed to protect us (not defend the Constitution). THAT is the problem. And, since we don't hold them accountable and/or work to get decent people in place, it's ultimately our fault.
  • Reply 75 of 103
    cgWerks said:
    macwise said:
    While I can appreciate that there are violent tendencies in normal folks found in societies, I encourage you to take a look at history to see the hugely disproportionate amount of violence coming from a relatively few men or women in power — the folks at the top. 
    ...
    Once we demand to be left alone and seek to remain free to tend to our own responsibilities, a massive revolution will happen unlike anything humanity has seen before. Again, not a utopia, per se, but certainly a massive advancement in productivity, peace, and mutual prosperity. 

    But, I also understand too much about human nature to see that working w/o a certain level of government (both local and national). We may not agree on that aspect, given your last statement. Too many see us 'progressing' towards being more and move 'civilized' in our behavior... but just consider things like texting and driving or some of the behavior we're seeing on campuses these days.
    I think it's worth pausing and analyzing the facts anytime the government uses the term "epidemic". Here's what the texting and driving death "epidemic" looks like:



    Kind of disappointing, right?

    Now consider that by being told to focus on only one aspect of the story, you're missing 90% of the facts. For instance, most of the data is drawn out of thin air (take the example of the widely quoted "11 teenagers die every day from texting and driving", when in reality only 9 HUMANS die every day in the US from ALL distracted driving accidents, of which T&D is a subset). The remaining data is generally of little worth because it relies on accounts given by police officers in crash reports, and rarely goes beyond the mere assumptions the officer on scene makes during the few minutes he spends gathering tidbits for his report. 

    Here's another good take on the topic: https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/why-you-cant-understand-the-texting-and-driving-problem-in-one-chart-in-one-chart/

    But it gets worse. Do you think texting and driving is eliminated by laws which explicitly prohibit it? No. In fact, most people, admittedly, simply do it more sneakily, which in turn leads to much higher levels of danger. So now we have a mildly risky behavior which, thanks to governments' fearmongering and shaming tactics (which are largely driven by a desire to cash in on "errant" behavior it just loves to outlaw, and for which it then feels free to publicly extort otherwise innocent citizens), causes people to continue but in an exponentially more dangerous fashion. Instead of texting with the phone front and center so other drivers are aware of the risks from another driver and so the distracted driver can keep at least a peripheral view of the road, they are now holding the phone below the steering wheel where their eyeline is entirely cut off from traffic ahead and to the sides. One could reasonably argue that only reason we have as many accidents from texting and driving today is because government has made it exponentially more worthwhile for folks to behave more dangerously in order to avoid "getting caught", when in reality society would have been much more benefitted by simple, honest stories of how distracted driving (of any sort) caused real harm to individuals. Persuasion would have massively more widespread affect on helping people measure the real risks, but coercion at the point of the gun is what pulls in the $$$.

    This is a perfect example of government not caring about policies aimed at safety, but rather opt to institute policies which are lucrative. They actually LOVE accidents, despite all their hollyhootin' to the contrary. And this is the type of "structure" you're arguing for. The one that uses perverse incentives (deaths, accidents, more risky behaviors) to its advantage so it can continue to grow and control. 

    cgWerks said:

    In fact, I think society is degrading in the West, so we're actually going to see harsher government, law enforcement, etc. attempting to stave off the inevitable chaos (unless people start to wake up and change).
    I'll humbly invite you to take the above into consideration, and re-asses whether you have mistakenly conflated your cause and effect. In other words, perhaps it is these higher levels of coercion which lead people to stray from thinking for themselves (including in matters of morality) and take accountability for their own actions and lives. For me, once I opened my mind to consider that possibility, it was like an unstoppable landslide that showed me how much taking away others' self- reliance and responsibility leads to a breakdown in society.
    edited December 2017
  • Reply 76 of 103
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,112member
    ߙ젔his will probably fail, but eventually reason will win out and these dickwads who work for the lobbyists that pay them instead of their constituents will eventually fall. At least their motivation is clear; it's the idiots they dupe that are the real head scratcher.

    edited December 2017
  • Reply 77 of 103
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,182member
    macwise said:
    I think it's worth pausing and analyzing the facts anytime the government uses the term "epidemic". Here's what the texting and driving death "epidemic" looks like:
    ...
    I'll humbly invite you to take the above into consideration, and re-asses whether you have mistakenly conflated your cause and effect. In other words, perhaps it is these higher levels of coercion which lead people to stray from thinking for themselves (including in matters of morality) and take accountability for their own actions and lives. For me, once I opened my mind to consider that possibility, it was like an unstoppable landslide that showed me how much taking away others' self- reliance and responsibility leads to a breakdown in society.
    A couple of major problems with that graph. Vehicle fatalities have decreased due to the increase in safety of the vehicles. I'd need to see the number of accidents, or better, the number of accidents related to distracted driving. Also, the graphs end at 2008 which is before the driving and texting craze even took off.

    Just from personal observation, I've seen an increase in people doing stupid things because they aren't paying attention. That said, people have always been doing other kinds of stupid things... but this is more like an additional layer, as they haven't stopped the previous stupid stuff.

    But, I do agree with you that some of the cell-phone related laws have made things worse. For example, where I live, you can get a ticket for monkeying with your device when stopped at an intersection (which might be a great place to check it if you must, or pick a new song, etc.). And, as you say, trying to hide what you're doing also makes it less safe. My issue is more that people have actually become so stupid as to do something like text and drive, in the first place!

    re: coercion -

    I think I partly agree. But, I think the coercion still follows for the most part. What I think has changed, has been the removal of emphasis on virtues/morals and repercussions and responsibility have been softened. This has led to a change in behavior, and then coercion and 'arm of the law' follow. For example, consider the term 'teenager' and then look historically (and not too long ago) at the difference in responsibility, natural consequences, and behavior. Or, consider how the family structure has changed. Look at what a 'liberal' education meant 100 or 50 years ago compared to now.

    We're in a very different society than just a generation or two ago. This kind of change can't come without consequences. And, as virtue/real-morality begins to erode, the vacuum has to be filled with ever-increasing complexity of law to try and cage-in behavior that for the most part, happened naturally.
  • Reply 78 of 103
    cgWerks said:
    One thing to keep in mind in this debate, is that the policy was never law. So, if it had any impact, it just kept the telecoms scared that it might someday.
    cf. 10m20s in https://congressionaldish.com/net-neutrality/

    Soli said:
    But that does affect users. It means that the costs are passed onto the users from Apple (an overall minor issue), and it means that corporations, like Apple, can afford to ink deals that push their services ahead of others, as well as squash smaller competitors (major issue for the free market).
    I think we need some form of net neutrality (the principal), but w/o the baggage. But, first, we need to get control of our government so we can keep them from doing worse than the corporations. Also, whatever form it takes, it will have to include some kind of common-sense aspect. For example, companies like Netflix and Apple can afford and currently put systems in place that give them unfair advantages to any competing service I might want to startup. All content hasn't been treated equally for a long time.

    To me, it's more about evaluating any collusion between a content producer and the distribution network. A content producer cutting some kind of deal with a particular content distribution mechanism is problematic. For example, if Disney wants to implement some kind of localized caching boxes to speed delivery of their content, they can't do so only with Comcast, or stuff like that
    theres plenty of collusion going all no matter the label. 
    tallest skilcgWerks
  • Reply 79 of 103
    jSnivelyjSnively Posts: 323administrator
    We're re-running this article in light of recent events. As always we welcome discussion so long as it remains productive.
    edited May 11
  • Reply 80 of 103
    Summer repeats already?

    Seriously though, I don't think anything productive will come with our current Administration.

    Especially since AT&T has been found to be paying to try to get the president's ear. 



    baconstangGeorgeBMac
Sign In or Register to comment.