Name an unregulated market. There are places in the US that "regulate" children's lemonade stands. The internet isn't even entirely unregulated. There are probably some areas in which the mob or some kind of organized criminal gang can inflict some force on how people do business. Labor unions can legally do some pretty thuggish things to a business for using non-union workers. In these situations the control is over the businesses, not the consumers. I can't think of any services in which provider's thugs are a threat to consumers. Some businesses do require contracts that can be expensive to get out of, like a gym membership or wireless contracts. But consumers can get out of them, and they were not forced to sign the contract with a particular provider, they could shop around. I did make exception for utilities, as these tend to fall into a natural monopoly due to high investment costs at start up. Utilities should have some regulations because natural market forces are extremely limited. Now as for the big tech companies, Facebook, Google, Twitter, ect, hold such a large market share because they have a product people want. There are competitors and alternative services, no one is forced to use the big ones so they are not monopolies. However, as Masnick and several others have pointed out, if Facebook gets regulated, their service will be cemented and they become far less likely to fall to creative destruction that would bring on a new industry leader(s). Regulation creates monopolies, it solidifies the positions of incumbents. The big tech companies aren't scared of SESTA/FOSTA because they can afford to comply, unlike the smaller companies who could be wiped out with one mistake. And ultimately, the survivors of this regulation will just be more cronies of the government that we can't get rid of when they stop servicing the consumer.
Value is a relative term, and if I do not feel that I am getting my money's worth, I can choose not to buy the good or service, or to buy from a competing business (with the exception of utilities). A company's ability to impose prices, fees and contractual obligations that diminish the value of a product, and I cannot take my business elsewhere, is the result of over-REGULATION that comes from cronyism. Businesses that cannot or do not want to compete lobby the government for rules to protect them from competition- most of which are under the guise of public safety. I'm saying all regulations are cronyiest tools with no actual consumer interest; each regulation should be evaluated for it's merit. Think about it for a minute. Taxi companies versus rideshare companies. Professional licensing- like cosmotology licensing for hair braiding and eyebrow threading. Comcast fighting one-touch make ready so that Google couldn't lay fiber wireline. You are angry at free markets and capitalism because the US market is actually drenched in cronyism that is intentionally and incorrectly being called capitalism. Libertarians aren't spouting the nonsense. Republicans who claim they want free markets but actually want laws to benefit their cronies are nonsense. Democrats who claim they want they want consumer protections but ignore all of the unintended consequences are nonsense.
Again, Cheers Mike! I'm a libertarian and it is beyond frustrating that fellow libertarians don't understand net neutrality, so they rail against it and call NN supporters stupid and/or socialist. Internet access has been reliant on the regulated telecom industry before becoming a utility itself and has never been a free market. Because internet access is a service from the already long-since entrenched telecom and cable monopoly providers, there is nothing anti-liberty about setting some ground rules to ensure all of the entities dependent on a monopoly provider have free market opportunities to flourish. Mike is pointing out the solutions suggested by EFF which are free market and need no government intervention (aside from rolling back regulations that hinder these solutions). These are the same things- although much better articulated and researched- that I have been arguing for every time I hear calls to regulate Facebook, Google, Twitter: give people the tools and access to settings to select what they are willing to share about themselves and with whom, and what content they wish to be "protected" from. Empower people to make their own choices- with both the liabilities and benefits from those choices. We don't need the government to protect us from ourselves, even if we aren't concious of how we might be "harming" ourselves.
I feel like kind of a dope because I can't seem to figure out what sort of data has been taken. Does this group now have access to user phone numbers, addresses, date of birth, email address? Or do they know that I have liked/commented on memes representative of my political or ideological beliefs, that I like local thrift stores, an art product called Unicorn Spit, Cyanogen Mod, the Innocence Project, the White Stripes, and MPP? I mean, if this group is using any of my personal contact information to reach out to me, that could be annoying, but easily ignored. Now if they sold this data to Lexus Nexus (which probably mines this data from FB from other sources) and it gets in the hands of bill collectors, then I am angry and I want blood. On the other hand, if this company wants to analyze my likes and try to figure out who I am, whether and how to target me for political ads, and how they think they can "influence" me, then I really couldn't care less. I'm not bothered by seeing ads for products that I am actually shopping for online- beats erectile dysfunction treatment, magic weight loss tea, and schemes to make money without doing anything that I have zero interest in. I am not a Democrat nor a Republican so I doubt I fit anyone's key demographic for politics anyway. I read from sources that lean far left, right and everything in between, to understand issues from everyone's perspective, so I doubt the few minutes I spend on FB is going to effectively influence me. But then again, maybe I am just willfully blind to being a tool....
YES it is generally just a speed trap town. The police keep busy writing traffic tickets and harassing pedestrians for jay walking and public drunkeness. I'm a Delawarean and we actually have some nice beaches, some of the cleanest on the coast. Dewey is more of young adult party town, in between a few more family and traditional beach towns. It's totally dead from around Labor day to almost Memorial day, and I would be shocked if 400 people actually stay there off season since most businesses close down. (although living at the beach during the summer season would probably cause me to to go on a violent rampage because from Friday afternoon through Sunday evening it's bumper to bumper, wall to wall traffic every single weekend in the summer, and only slightly better on the weekdays). The only danger that I could possibly conceive of that might require homeland security patrol is the relative proximity to the Jersey Shore and the hazards of anyone from there washing up on Delaware beaches.
Thank you for some sanity! From what I can tell, there is a huge disconnect in understanding how a free market determines winners and losers versus how a government determines winners and losers. Google, Facebook, or Twitter are winners because people like their services the most. And none of them has exclusive service power, you can use these platforms as much or as little as you want, as well as a huge variety of competing platforms or alternative search engines. Facebook didn't lobby for regulations to take down MySpace, people just liked the FB platform more. With all of the government required and urged regulations, another platform not under the same scrutiny could become the new winner. A new player doesn't need a trove of personal data that Powell claims is a barrier to entry, all they need is a great idea and good execution. The free market allows for choice which works better than top-down one size fits all regulations. Now if we don't get NN done right, ISPs could try to snatch up the power to pick winners and losers (they themselves would inevitably be the winners) by extracting fees from the big edge providers, that new edge providers could never afford. Or they could create their own search engines and social media that are given exclusive fast lanes while slowing down the market favorites. Inconvenience would push consumers to the ISP products, which would suck up ad dollars and get the data they are already siphoning from the captured market. Consumers that don't like their ISP in most places have no alternatives, I know I don't. And the bullshit about dopamine rush of "likes", internet addiction or supposed harms to my mental health are nothing more than nanny-state beliefs that people are utterly incapable of self moderation and plainly too stupid to function without some kind of government protecting us from ourselves. The government can't do anything the people have asked effectively or efficiently, so I see no reason to allow them to take over that which is my personal responsibility.
I can't help but wonder if any of those Senators have actually searched any of the targeted sites or Google for places online to actually purchase a prescription drug, particularly a narcotic, with or without a prescription. And upon finding any website that claims to sell the drugs online, with their naivety, do any appear to have a reputation that indicates you wouldn't be handing over your credit card and billing/shipping information to thieves who would immediately max out your card and haunt you with identity theft? Do they even have a clue what legitimate patients deal with? Narcotics scripts must be submitted electronically by the prescriber in most places, and otherwise must be an original presented in person- so that the patient can be given sufficient disapproving glares to ensure that they understand that no one believes they actually need such medication, and feel deep shame for their disgusting drug seeking behavior. Hell, most pharmacies won't even tell a patient over the phone if they have a narcotic in stock and sufficient quantity to fill the amount prescribed (because you forfeit any quantity that cannot be filled if they run out). The DEA seized cannabis lockboxes from the shipping company so that responsible adults could not purchase them at the same dispensaries they buy cannabis. Do these senators actually think the DEA doesn't ensure that it's nearly impossible to get drugs from an unregulated/ non-U.S. pharmacy? Just for fun, I would love to see one of these senators go ahead and try to order from Canada, just to see the DEA conduct a pre-dawn no knock raid on their home. I mean, even if the DEA intercepts the package, who knows what these traffickers already have in their possession. I want some lawmakers to feel consequences of their thoughtless "doing something", just like the rest of us.
First, there's nothing wrong with using SEO, that's how you get eyes on your article.
Second, the FCC is and was referred to as Obama's FCC. It's simply a way of indicating the different priorities of each administration. It was also called the Bush FCC and Clinton FCC.
Third, this article is critical of Ajit Pai specifically, doesn't use Trump in the title or repeatedly in the body. If you don't like or disagree with Techdirt's viewpoint, you don't have to read it. Nobody would mind if you brought up a substantial point for consideration, but your complaint isn't even accurate.
Thank you Jupiter. I am a Libertarian, and I do want to end the welfare state.... the corporate welfare state. When we repeal all these crony, protectionist, competition stifling laws that only serve the incumbent big businesses and serve no actual consumer or environmental purposes, then we can begin to roll back programs for low income citizens. Right now, we have too many rules and laws and over-criminalization that destroy family stability, distort price and supply, and prevent decent and able people from being able to fully support themselves. The fraud that AC is complaining about is only minimally attributable to consumer abuse- Techdirt has plenty of articles about 411 billing scams, AT&T billing obfuscation, ect, ect.... For now, $9.95 covers a decent portion of communication access for low-income or unemployed people, and is just as necessary as every other utility. I know access to phone or internet doesn't seem as necessary as heat, water, electricity, but there is no getting a job, let alone maintaining necessary medical care, or being reached in the event of a child's emergency without a line of communication.
Well, the Vegas shooter had gathered household chemicals used to make bombs and was driving around with them in his car, and the killers at Columbine had working pipe and propane bombs (and I was a high school senior during Columbine and the internet then was nothing like the treasure trove of information today). And more Europeans, who we are looking to as the example of "good" gun control, are killed by bombs than Americans. This is a viable alternative in the absence of guns. We have seen both here and abroad, especially abroad, that vehicles can and will be used as instruments of death and terror. I am a little dubious on the statistics that claim there are more mass shooting deaths and frequency in other first world nations than the US when accounting for population, because it's unclear how they determine their proportionality; but, I have seen similar stats coming from a variety sources, not just pro-gun activists. Other readers might be able to dig a little better into this than I have. And yes, I was stretching on power tools, but nothing drives creativity and innovation like a dose of necessity. People will find a way to kill and terrorize innocent people with or without guns. Aside from taking away the tools that more than 99% of people use and maintain responsibly because of the rare crazed individual, what other solutions to that individual are there? Besides, there is no consensus on "common sense gun control", too many people lack sufficient knowledge about guns to discuss seriously (myself included, except I know some basic terminology that most people are using incorrectly), and this lack of knowledge about guns makes "common sense" gun control even more elusive. Nonetheless, I am disgusted to see right-wingers trying to suppress and discredit the students. Ignoring their voice, disregarding their feelings, when this is so personal to them, and an experience that none of us can fully appreciate, it's just plain wrong and will only fuel the divide. Without Sympathy an empathy for one another, why are we even discussing anything? The issue that I wish the students would address with every bit the fervor of gun control and the legislators in the gun lobbyist pockets, is the repeated failures of law enforcement to do their job. And while cops and the NRA are pitted "against"each other on gun control, the NRA is a major supporter of police, and many officers are members. That disgusting ad the NRA did, portraying BLM activists protesting the cops as life threatening danger to law abiding [white] citizens. Where were they during Philando Castille's trial? No where to be found because they were quietly supporting the cop. The cops have guns and essentially special rights to use guns against innocent, sometimes mentally ill (in a non-violent way), individual, with zero accountability. Cops always make sure they are going home for dinner at the end of their shift, but what about the teachers that used their body as a shield for students? Cops get the prestige and pay and power of a hero who would lay their life down for innocent people, but they couldn't even be bothered to follow up on credible warnings of a kid whose skin was too white, and obviously lacked ties with the Muslim religion, let alone take a scintilla of risk and run into the building and at least try to stop the massacre. Should we trust the government to enforce fair and effective gun control? Even the military couldn't be bothered to submit the record of a piece of shit who broke a 2 year old's face, choked his wife and made numerous threats of violence to his superiors. I prefer to maintain my natural right to self defense, and don't feel that vast majority of law abiding people should risk being outgunned by corrupt and incompetent police, or a crazed killer that doesn't care if they live or die.
The point that is often missed is that accepting the basic understanding that bad people intent on harming others will simply choose different tools to carry out their evil- does not mean that we believe nothing should be done at all. Hell, take away all guns and knives (forget the violent civil war that would be inevitable in such an aggressive confiscation effort)and angry and disturbed people will use their vehicles, build bombs from household chemicals, or get disturbingly creative by modifying construction tools like nail guns, power saws or welding equipment. What do we do when we get fed up with attacks using items like these? Instead, let's talk about what drives someone to harm or want to harm innocent people. And when the words "mental health" come up- lets clarify that most mental health issues are, by far, self-destructive, and do not manifest in violence towards others. We need to learn what disorders are related to violence because otherwise far too many people are being wrongly classified as potentially dangerous. What else drives violence? Broken homes, bullying, prior trauma or victimization, radical ideology? And how do we identify and justly deal with a potential attacker, without expanding the surveillance state or empowering unilateral government actions that never have any accountability? How do we effectively deal with failures of past and future law enforcement? What can we do to mitigate the harm and stop an attacker that never made it on the radar to prevent (like the Vegas shooter)? How do we empower individuals to act in self-defense, or take cover securely? And how do we live without constantly being in a state of fear? And avoid a police state that just victimizes more innocent people. These are all non-partisan, apolitical questions that we need to discuss.
I agree with your points about liberty 200%- I'm guessing you might be a fellow libertarian? But, I don't believe that the left is any more or less in favor democracy and liberty than the right. They both are statist. They simply have different favored groups and policies, and little to no interest in listening to and considering the merits of the opposing side's arguments. What really bothers me is that attempts to shut down opposing viewpoints, is not just insecurity in the merits of favored ideas, but that there is something to fear. Fear drives radical and irrational behavior and is always used to justify incursions on liberty. This is thought police in the making.
Central planning in the context of military action is a very different beast than it is in a city. Each unit has an assigned task, a protocol for completing it and all units are working towards a specific goal, and central planning works. The residents of a any community have similar needs and goals, but how those needs are met and the specific goals are entirely subjective to each and every individual, which is antithetical to central planning. We have to remember that concentrated areas of poor and minority peoples was a feature of central planning through redlining. Economic opportunities have been chased away by regulations, permitting, land-use restrictions that came from lobbying the bureaucrats and councils by incumbent businesses fighting competition (like we see from ISP and cable companies), various NIMBY activists. These laws and regulations prevent people from creating their own prosperity and effectively dependent on government assistance. I totally agree that adequate and comprehensive healthcare is necessary for communities to thrive. But one of the most significant drivers of healthcare costs and lack of available care is central planning mistake that created Medicaid and Medicare while maintaining artificial limitations on the number of licensed physicians practicing and students in medical school at the behest of the AMA (I'm not against Medicaid/Medicare). Another central planning idea that limits providers and facilities (to the degree that people die) are CON laws (Certificate of Need) that you might be interested in learning more about. I'm pointing out some of these things to demonstrate the negative outcomes of central planning. Honestly, when you picture a housing project, do you picture a safe, healthy, stable environment? What's to make anyone think the government would get it right this time? I used to think that the government should "do something" or "fix" the problem, or "there ought a be a law!". But eventually it dawned on me that the government almost always either was the cause of a problem, or it made the problem worse. I know that isn't always the intention, but if you go back and research the original "progressives", you'll find the "welfare" they advocated had sinister ulterior motives. Just because the motivation of today's progressives has changed doesn't mean the outcome of the same welfare efforts has changed. Certainly I don't think guns will fix broken communities, but I think the members of those communities should not be subject to lesser rights than anyone else. It would huge step forward for black communities to be able to exercise their 2A rights the same as white communities because disarming them has always been a means of control and limitation and representative of inequality.
And I bet the surviving members of the Texas church shooting would argue that it was a better deal for them that a good guy with a gun engaged the shooter when he went out to get another gun from his car. The shooter could have gone back inside and killed a bunch more people, but was shot and forced to flee by a good guy who made it there before the cops.
Yes, anti-depressants and other psychological meds have clear warnings not to suddenly stop taking them, as well as to immediately contact your doctor if you develop suicidal thoughts. I can tell you from experience that some meds have horrible side effects just from missing a single dose- something called "the zaps" that feels like being electrocuted inside your brain for a few seconds at random- but severe reactions from sudden stoppage don't usually happen until someone has been on a full therapeutic dose for a little while. I think we like to throw terms like over-medicated around because Big Pharma and doctors are favorite scapegoats, just like musicians, movie and video game producers. Certainly some kids are being put unnecessary medications because parents are ill-informed or maybe even lazy. But likewise, some kids (like the killer in Sandyhook) have conditions that need medication and significant therapeutic support that never get it, because the parent may be resistant to such treatments, or again, too lazy. I don't like to defend Big Pharma, but I can't deny that medication has drastically improved my life. The key is having access to a wide selection and finding the right provider.
The kid in Florida was actually an adult, so a parent's ability to control this was limited. And he is an orphan, his adoptive mother died only last November. We don't know if the reason for his maladjustment comes from biological parents or adoptive parents, and we probably never will. We don't know what the root cause of this particular attack, just like the Vegas shooter's motivation is not known (or not revealed at this time). But, we do know that this kid was flashing red all over the radar, probably more than any other successful mass-killer, and the FBI and the Sheriff dept failed to act. And the last line of defense, the armed school resource officer, was a coward. Too bad the masses won't rally to hold the LEO liable.
Um, are you guys arguing the same side, but doing so with so much sarcasm that you think you are against each other? I mean, I see some good points from both of you, but I can't tell if they are sincere. It would be easier if you both created a darn user name btw.
I'm unclear if this suggestion was supposed to sarcasm or satire. Because I think black citizens 2A rights are unjustly and systematically curtailed. The most restrictive gun laws are where the highest amount of violence occurs, which are also poor and predominantly black. Decent law-abiding people are prohibited from effective means of self defense, while those who don't care about laws, commit crimes against them knowing they can't fight back (I don't know the stats, but I suspect a lot of crime occurs criminal on criminal, like gang violence, which is perpetuated by over criminalization and central planning that squashes economic opportunity) And I agree that the cops need to get over pants-wetting fear of armed black people, but it's not so easy as waiving a wand.
So wrong, on so many points. 1) Refugees, asylum seekers are all immigrants, but not all immigrants are refugees or asylum seekers. The rich don't have influence over immigration by way of compassion pleas. Immigration is determined by legislation, executive order, and government bureaucracy, often in coordination with the UN and/or other national governments. 2) The other 99%, the regular folks, are not harmed or negatively affected by this supposed more direct "consequence" of a diverse society. Immigrants are just scapegoats for the nationalist populist (similarly the white nationalist lay blame for societal ills on black people, complaining 'haven't we given them enough already?') agenda. It's easier to blame the "others" and whip up a frenzy of political action against a common "enemy". Life is not a zero sum game. 3) Law enforcement is not pressured into anything. They can be as utterly incompetent as any other government entity and we will foolishly keep shoveling money at them, faster the more incompetent. There is no enforcement purpose in destroying life-sustaining emergency supplies supplied by humanitarian groups in remote and perilous desert locations. ICE and CBP are not uniquely cruel and inhumane by comparison to any other law enforcement agency. 4) Allowing conditional immigration to anyone who does not have a violent history, and will not likely need government welfare (barring an emergency) and who wants to make a better life for themselves will not destroy anything. Competition between workers, citizen or immigrant, means that the worker must leverage his personal value to an employer by being better or faster, conceding working conditions such as agreeing to be migratory or taking lower pay, or by acquiring/utilizing an additional skill/service like translating for non-english speaking co-workers, providing reliable transportation, or taking on a managerial role. No one is entitled to a job as a birth right, competition is part of life. 5) Arguing that arbitrary restrictions on immigration are needed because many immigrants come from socialist nations, and that they will either change or influence the electorate to vote democrat and pro-socialist agenda is another straw-man. The only reason immigrants are more democrat is because the democrats aren't hostile towards them. Immigrants from socialist nations are escaping that hell, they know first hand how awful socialism is. 6) Wealth inequalities between rich and poor nations is the fuel for immigration? And US corporations have a share of blame? Huh? I would agree if you said it was US government that has interfered with some nations' ability to flourish, and contributing to refugee crisis. But what are harms do businesses cause? US companies outsource jobs, like manufacturing, to poorer nations which creates economic opportunity for struggling people. Jobs at sweatshops are preferable to starvation and prostitution, as awful as sweatshops seem to first-worlders. Some think trade deficits are a bad thing, thinking it's a zero-sum game that harms the US, so I don't understand how your claim fits in this dynamic.
Education is not bad, as I said my family is pursuing an un-schooling model of education. Compulsory schooling, mandated by the state- and not rich education sought by families that includes a variety of formal schooling and activities along with informal and flexible learning opportunities that foster the love of learning- is causing real harm. Kids being forced to go to school and follow highly unnatural routines, like being forced to sit still for hours on end, not permitted to eat or use the restroom when their body tells them to, on schedules that conflict with their sleep needs; all of that in addition to limitations on what they are permitted to read or study, how much time they are allowed or required to spend on a subject is regimented, regardless of interest. The increase of mental health crisis in kids and teens coordinates with the beginning of the school year and drops during summer break. Education for education's sake ended when school became compulsory and education became indoctrination of the state.
I'm a libertarian and I believe freedom is the key to the pursuit of happiness. We must be free to make mistakes and sometimes that means harming ourselves. I had a shopping addiction, racked up tens of thousands of dollars in debt. It hurt me and a long term relationship and my mother, who ended up supporting me when I lost my job during the recession. But I was forced to confront the underlying problems that drove me to shop for happiness, but only ever brought anxiety and guilt. I also had to learn how to write and follow a budget- a skill I consider priceless. I gained self-control and coping mechanisms so that I could do routine shopping and make necessary purchases. If someone had the authority to take over my finances and put me on an allowance, I would have turned to other more destructive behaviors in an attempt to gain control over my life and never would have learned anything or improved myself. I don't feel any of the negative effects or bad feelings from screen time. If I, or anyone else, does feel negatively affected by screen time, it is our personal responsibility to change our lifestyle.
Yes humans are social beings and we seek social support; but, when people feel bad, or sad or guilty, they often withdraw and become reclusive. I call it "hermitting", it's what I do when my depression gets out of control, even though social support is what I need. Something that helped me cope and hedged suicidal feelings the last time was actually interacting with others in a depression forum online. It made me feel useful, and gave me a sense of purpose to provide a friendly ear and supportive attitude, and even a little advice or perspective. I know there are plenty of toxic interactions online, but that doesn't deter me from seeking the positive ones. I have the right to free association and again I counter that screen time is not harmful.
I lash out because I do not like other's thinking they have the right or the responsibility to protect me from myself. I lash out because I do not tolerate authoritarians. I think capitalism is awesome- Not cronyism that is incorrectly called capitalism in the US- and I'm not worried about profit driven advertisers. Their motives are clear. Most expecting parents, especially first timers, probably are struggling with tough questions. I'm actually the most sure and confident about my life and future that I have ever been. I'm not even scared about labor. I'm 36, secure in who I am and not only my relationship with, but the quality of the father my baby. I know myself pretty well, I didn't post for subconscious reasons. What makes me think you ascribe to helicopter parenting and stranger-danger nonsense is over-protective nature of the idea that not only are we all addicted to our devices, but we are blind to the addiction and the harm you claim it is causing. It's people who think they know better than the parents that report kids walking to the park or playing in the yard alone to the cops. People who think it's the state's responsibility to educate kids because the parents aren't capable.
I'm glad your not offended, as that wasn't my intention. But I haven't considered changing my mind or actions. I haven't even questioned my position. Actually, authoritarians tend to bring out my stubborn side, drive me to dig in even more. I get it honest from my grandmother and mom. We got along best when we weren't trying to tell each other what to do.
On the post: How 'Regulating Facebook' Could Make Everyone's Concerns Worse, Not Better
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are probably some areas in which the mob or some kind of organized criminal gang can inflict some force on how people do business. Labor unions can legally do some pretty thuggish things to a business for using non-union workers. In these situations the control is over the businesses, not the consumers. I can't think of any services in which provider's thugs are a threat to consumers.
Some businesses do require contracts that can be expensive to get out of, like a gym membership or wireless contracts. But consumers can get out of them, and they were not forced to sign the contract with a particular provider, they could shop around.
I did make exception for utilities, as these tend to fall into a natural monopoly due to high investment costs at start up. Utilities should have some regulations because natural market forces are extremely limited.
Now as for the big tech companies, Facebook, Google, Twitter, ect, hold such a large market share because they have a product people want. There are competitors and alternative services, no one is forced to use the big ones so they are not monopolies. However, as Masnick and several others have pointed out, if Facebook gets regulated, their service will be cemented and they become far less likely to fall to creative destruction that would bring on a new industry leader(s). Regulation creates monopolies, it solidifies the positions of incumbents. The big tech companies aren't scared of SESTA/FOSTA because they can afford to comply, unlike the smaller companies who could be wiped out with one mistake. And ultimately, the survivors of this regulation will just be more cronies of the government that we can't get rid of when they stop servicing the consumer.
On the post: How 'Regulating Facebook' Could Make Everyone's Concerns Worse, Not Better
Re: Re:
Think about it for a minute. Taxi companies versus rideshare companies. Professional licensing- like cosmotology licensing for hair braiding and eyebrow threading. Comcast fighting one-touch make ready so that Google couldn't lay fiber wireline.
You are angry at free markets and capitalism because the US market is actually drenched in cronyism that is intentionally and incorrectly being called capitalism. Libertarians aren't spouting the nonsense. Republicans who claim they want free markets but actually want laws to benefit their cronies are nonsense. Democrats who claim they want they want consumer protections but ignore all of the unintended consequences are nonsense.
On the post: How 'Regulating Facebook' Could Make Everyone's Concerns Worse, Not Better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a shocker!
Mike is pointing out the solutions suggested by EFF which are free market and need no government intervention (aside from rolling back regulations that hinder these solutions). These are the same things- although much better articulated and researched- that I have been arguing for every time I hear calls to regulate Facebook, Google, Twitter: give people the tools and access to settings to select what they are willing to share about themselves and with whom, and what content they wish to be "protected" from. Empower people to make their own choices- with both the liabilities and benefits from those choices. We don't need the government to protect us from ourselves, even if we aren't concious of how we might be "harming" ourselves.
On the post: Both Facebook And Cambridge Analytica Threatened To Sue Journalists Over Stories On CA's Use Of Facebook Data
What kind of data has been taken?
I mean, if this group is using any of my personal contact information to reach out to me, that could be annoying, but easily ignored. Now if they sold this data to Lexus Nexus (which probably mines this data from FB from other sources) and it gets in the hands of bill collectors, then I am angry and I want blood.
On the other hand, if this company wants to analyze my likes and try to figure out who I am, whether and how to target me for political ads, and how they think they can "influence" me, then I really couldn't care less. I'm not bothered by seeing ads for products that I am actually shopping for online- beats erectile dysfunction treatment, magic weight loss tea, and schemes to make money without doing anything that I have zero interest in. I am not a Democrat nor a Republican so I doubt I fit anyone's key demographic for politics anyway. I read from sources that lean far left, right and everything in between, to understand issues from everyone's perspective, so I doubt the few minutes I spend on FB is going to effectively influence me. But then again, maybe I am just willfully blind to being a tool....
On the post: Police Department With Eight Full-Time Officers Acquired 31 Military Vehicles Thru DoD's Surplus Program
Re: 8 full time officers for 400 people?
The only danger that I could possibly conceive of that might require homeland security patrol is the relative proximity to the Jersey Shore and the hazards of anyone from there washing up on Delaware beaches.
On the post: Cable's Top Lobbyist Again Calls For Hyper Regulation Of Silicon Valley
Re: Re: Re:
From what I can tell, there is a huge disconnect in understanding how a free market determines winners and losers versus how a government determines winners and losers. Google, Facebook, or Twitter are winners because people like their services the most. And none of them has exclusive service power, you can use these platforms as much or as little as you want, as well as a huge variety of competing platforms or alternative search engines. Facebook didn't lobby for regulations to take down MySpace, people just liked the FB platform more. With all of the government required and urged regulations, another platform not under the same scrutiny could become the new winner. A new player doesn't need a trove of personal data that Powell claims is a barrier to entry, all they need is a great idea and good execution. The free market allows for choice which works better than top-down one size fits all regulations.
Now if we don't get NN done right, ISPs could try to snatch up the power to pick winners and losers (they themselves would inevitably be the winners) by extracting fees from the big edge providers, that new edge providers could never afford. Or they could create their own search engines and social media that are given exclusive fast lanes while slowing down the market favorites. Inconvenience would push consumers to the ISP products, which would suck up ad dollars and get the data they are already siphoning from the captured market. Consumers that don't like their ISP in most places have no alternatives, I know I don't.
And the bullshit about dopamine rush of "likes", internet addiction or supposed harms to my mental health are nothing more than nanny-state beliefs that people are utterly incapable of self moderation and plainly too stupid to function without some kind of government protecting us from ourselves. The government can't do anything the people have asked effectively or efficiently, so I see no reason to allow them to take over that which is my personal responsibility.
On the post: Five Senators Agree: Search Engines Should Censor Drug Information
Hell, most pharmacies won't even tell a patient over the phone if they have a narcotic in stock and sufficient quantity to fill the amount prescribed (because you forfeit any quantity that cannot be filled if they run out).
The DEA seized cannabis lockboxes from the shipping company so that responsible adults could not purchase them at the same dispensaries they buy cannabis. Do these senators actually think the DEA doesn't ensure that it's nearly impossible to get drugs from an unregulated/ non-U.S. pharmacy? Just for fun, I would love to see one of these senators go ahead and try to order from Canada, just to see the DEA conduct a pre-dawn no knock raid on their home. I mean, even if the DEA intercepts the package, who knows what these traffickers already have in their possession.
I want some lawmakers to feel consequences of their thoughtless "doing something", just like the rest of us.
On the post: Nobody (Even His Industry BFFs) Likes Ajit Pai's Latest Attack On Low Income Broadband Programs
Re:
Second, the FCC is and was referred to as Obama's FCC. It's simply a way of indicating the different priorities of each administration. It was also called the Bush FCC and Clinton FCC.
Third, this article is critical of Ajit Pai specifically, doesn't use Trump in the title or repeatedly in the body. If you don't like or disagree with Techdirt's viewpoint, you don't have to read it. Nobody would mind if you brought up a substantial point for consideration, but your complaint isn't even accurate.
On the post: Nobody (Even His Industry BFFs) Likes Ajit Pai's Latest Attack On Low Income Broadband Programs
Re: Re: easy solution
The fraud that AC is complaining about is only minimally attributable to consumer abuse- Techdirt has plenty of articles about 411 billing scams, AT&T billing obfuscation, ect, ect....
For now, $9.95 covers a decent portion of communication access for low-income or unemployed people, and is just as necessary as every other utility. I know access to phone or internet doesn't seem as necessary as heat, water, electricity, but there is no getting a job, let alone maintaining necessary medical care, or being reached in the event of a child's emergency without a line of communication.
On the post: Anti-NRA Censorship Efforts Echo Earlier Pro-NRA Censorship Efforts, And Learn No Lessons From Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: BS
I am a little dubious on the statistics that claim there are more mass shooting deaths and frequency in other first world nations than the US when accounting for population, because it's unclear how they determine their proportionality; but, I have seen similar stats coming from a variety sources, not just pro-gun activists. Other readers might be able to dig a little better into this than I have. And yes, I was stretching on power tools, but nothing drives creativity and innovation like a dose of necessity. People will find a way to kill and terrorize innocent people with or without guns. Aside from taking away the tools that more than 99% of people use and maintain responsibly because of the rare crazed individual, what other solutions to that individual are there?
Besides, there is no consensus on "common sense gun control", too many people lack sufficient knowledge about guns to discuss seriously (myself included, except I know some basic terminology that most people are using incorrectly), and this lack of knowledge about guns makes "common sense" gun control even more elusive. Nonetheless, I am disgusted to see right-wingers trying to suppress and discredit the students. Ignoring their voice, disregarding their feelings, when this is so personal to them, and an experience that none of us can fully appreciate, it's just plain wrong and will only fuel the divide. Without Sympathy an empathy for one another, why are we even discussing anything?
The issue that I wish the students would address with every bit the fervor of gun control and the legislators in the gun lobbyist pockets, is the repeated failures of law enforcement to do their job. And while cops and the NRA are pitted "against"each other on gun control, the NRA is a major supporter of police, and many officers are members. That disgusting ad the NRA did, portraying BLM activists protesting the cops as life threatening danger to law abiding [white] citizens. Where were they during Philando Castille's trial? No where to be found because they were quietly supporting the cop. The cops have guns and essentially special rights to use guns against innocent, sometimes mentally ill (in a non-violent way), individual, with zero accountability. Cops always make sure they are going home for dinner at the end of their shift, but what about the teachers that used their body as a shield for students? Cops get the prestige and pay and power of a hero who would lay their life down for innocent people, but they couldn't even be bothered to follow up on credible warnings of a kid whose skin was too white, and obviously lacked ties with the Muslim religion, let alone take a scintilla of risk and run into the building and at least try to stop the massacre. Should we trust the government to enforce fair and effective gun control? Even the military couldn't be bothered to submit the record of a piece of shit who broke a 2 year old's face, choked his wife and made numerous threats of violence to his superiors.
I prefer to maintain my natural right to self defense, and don't feel that vast majority of law abiding people should risk being outgunned by corrupt and incompetent police, or a crazed killer that doesn't care if they live or die.
On the post: Anti-NRA Censorship Efforts Echo Earlier Pro-NRA Censorship Efforts, And Learn No Lessons From Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hell, take away all guns and knives (forget the violent civil war that would be inevitable in such an aggressive confiscation effort)and angry and disturbed people will use their vehicles, build bombs from household chemicals, or get disturbingly creative by modifying construction tools like nail guns, power saws or welding equipment. What do we do when we get fed up with attacks using items like these?
Instead, let's talk about what drives someone to harm or want to harm innocent people. And when the words "mental health" come up- lets clarify that most mental health issues are, by far, self-destructive, and do not manifest in violence towards others. We need to learn what disorders are related to violence because otherwise far too many people are being wrongly classified as potentially dangerous. What else drives violence? Broken homes, bullying, prior trauma or victimization, radical ideology?
And how do we identify and justly deal with a potential attacker, without expanding the surveillance state or empowering unilateral government actions that never have any accountability? How do we effectively deal with failures of past and future law enforcement?
What can we do to mitigate the harm and stop an attacker that never made it on the radar to prevent (like the Vegas shooter)? How do we empower individuals to act in self-defense, or take cover securely?
And how do we live without constantly being in a state of fear? And avoid a police state that just victimizes more innocent people.
These are all non-partisan, apolitical questions that we need to discuss.
On the post: Anti-NRA Censorship Efforts Echo Earlier Pro-NRA Censorship Efforts, And Learn No Lessons From Them
Re: Re: Re:
But, I don't believe that the left is any more or less in favor democracy and liberty than the right. They both are statist. They simply have different favored groups and policies, and little to no interest in listening to and considering the merits of the opposing side's arguments.
What really bothers me is that attempts to shut down opposing viewpoints, is not just insecurity in the merits of favored ideas, but that there is something to fear. Fear drives radical and irrational behavior and is always used to justify incursions on liberty. This is thought police in the making.
On the post: Right On Time: Kentucky Governor Lays The Blame For Florida School Shooting At The Feet Of Video Games
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We have to remember that concentrated areas of poor and minority peoples was a feature of central planning through redlining. Economic opportunities have been chased away by regulations, permitting, land-use restrictions that came from lobbying the bureaucrats and councils by incumbent businesses fighting competition (like we see from ISP and cable companies), various NIMBY activists. These laws and regulations prevent people from creating their own prosperity and effectively dependent on government assistance.
I totally agree that adequate and comprehensive healthcare is necessary for communities to thrive. But one of the most significant drivers of healthcare costs and lack of available care is central planning mistake that created Medicaid and Medicare while maintaining artificial limitations on the number of licensed physicians practicing and students in medical school at the behest of the AMA (I'm not against Medicaid/Medicare). Another central planning idea that limits providers and facilities (to the degree that people die) are CON laws (Certificate of Need) that you might be interested in learning more about. I'm pointing out some of these things to demonstrate the negative outcomes of central planning. Honestly, when you picture a housing project, do you picture a safe, healthy, stable environment? What's to make anyone think the government would get it right this time?
I used to think that the government should "do something" or "fix" the problem, or "there ought a be a law!". But eventually it dawned on me that the government almost always either was the cause of a problem, or it made the problem worse. I know that isn't always the intention, but if you go back and research the original "progressives", you'll find the "welfare" they advocated had sinister ulterior motives. Just because the motivation of today's progressives has changed doesn't mean the outcome of the same welfare efforts has changed.
Certainly I don't think guns will fix broken communities, but I think the members of those communities should not be subject to lesser rights than anyone else. It would huge step forward for black communities to be able to exercise their 2A rights the same as white communities because disarming them has always been a means of control and limitation and representative of inequality.
On the post: Right On Time: Kentucky Governor Lays The Blame For Florida School Shooting At The Feet Of Video Games
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Freedom is messy
And I bet the surviving members of the Texas church shooting would argue that it was a better deal for them that a good guy with a gun engaged the shooter when he went out to get another gun from his car. The shooter could have gone back inside and killed a bunch more people, but was shot and forced to flee by a good guy who made it there before the cops.
On the post: Right On Time: Kentucky Governor Lays The Blame For Florida School Shooting At The Feet Of Video Games
Re: Re: Re:
I think we like to throw terms like over-medicated around because Big Pharma and doctors are favorite scapegoats, just like musicians, movie and video game producers. Certainly some kids are being put unnecessary medications because parents are ill-informed or maybe even lazy. But likewise, some kids (like the killer in Sandyhook) have conditions that need medication and significant therapeutic support that never get it, because the parent may be resistant to such treatments, or again, too lazy.
I don't like to defend Big Pharma, but I can't deny that medication has drastically improved my life. The key is having access to a wide selection and finding the right provider.
On the post: Right On Time: Kentucky Governor Lays The Blame For Florida School Shooting At The Feet Of Video Games
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothing?
We don't know what the root cause of this particular attack, just like the Vegas shooter's motivation is not known (or not revealed at this time). But, we do know that this kid was flashing red all over the radar, probably more than any other successful mass-killer, and the FBI and the Sheriff dept failed to act. And the last line of defense, the armed school resource officer, was a coward. Too bad the masses won't rally to hold the LEO liable.
On the post: Right On Time: Kentucky Governor Lays The Blame For Florida School Shooting At The Feet Of Video Games
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It would be easier if you both created a darn user name btw.
On the post: Right On Time: Kentucky Governor Lays The Blame For Florida School Shooting At The Feet Of Video Games
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I agree that the cops need to get over pants-wetting fear of armed black people, but it's not so easy as waiving a wand.
On the post: Top ICE Lawyer Accused Of Identity Fraud Against Detained Immigrants
Re: Reasons
1) Refugees, asylum seekers are all immigrants, but not all immigrants are refugees or asylum seekers. The rich don't have influence over immigration by way of compassion pleas. Immigration is determined by legislation, executive order, and government bureaucracy, often in coordination with the UN and/or other national governments.
2) The other 99%, the regular folks, are not harmed or negatively affected by this supposed more direct "consequence" of a diverse society. Immigrants are just scapegoats for the nationalist populist (similarly the white nationalist lay blame for societal ills on black people, complaining 'haven't we given them enough already?') agenda. It's easier to blame the "others" and whip up a frenzy of political action against a common "enemy". Life is not a zero sum game.
3) Law enforcement is not pressured into anything. They can be as utterly incompetent as any other government entity and we will foolishly keep shoveling money at them, faster the more incompetent. There is no enforcement purpose in destroying life-sustaining emergency supplies supplied by humanitarian groups in remote and perilous desert locations. ICE and CBP are not uniquely cruel and inhumane by comparison to any other law enforcement agency.
4) Allowing conditional immigration to anyone who does not have a violent history, and will not likely need government welfare (barring an emergency) and who wants to make a better life for themselves will not destroy anything. Competition between workers, citizen or immigrant, means that the worker must leverage his personal value to an employer by being better or faster, conceding working conditions such as agreeing to be migratory or taking lower pay, or by acquiring/utilizing an additional skill/service like translating for non-english speaking co-workers, providing reliable transportation, or taking on a managerial role. No one is entitled to a job as a birth right, competition is part of life.
5) Arguing that arbitrary restrictions on immigration are needed because many immigrants come from socialist nations, and that they will either change or influence the electorate to vote democrat and pro-socialist agenda is another straw-man. The only reason immigrants are more democrat is because the democrats aren't hostile towards them. Immigrants from socialist nations are escaping that hell, they know first hand how awful socialism is.
6) Wealth inequalities between rich and poor nations is the fuel for immigration? And US corporations have a share of blame? Huh? I would agree if you said it was US government that has interfered with some nations' ability to flourish, and contributing to refugee crisis. But what are harms do businesses cause? US companies outsource jobs, like manufacturing, to poorer nations which creates economic opportunity for struggling people. Jobs at sweatshops are preferable to starvation and prostitution, as awful as sweatshops seem to first-worlders. Some think trade deficits are a bad thing, thinking it's a zero-sum game that harms the US, so I don't understand how your claim fits in this dynamic.
On the post: Everything That's Wrong With Social Media And Big Internet Companies: Part 2
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where is personal responsibility?
I'm a libertarian and I believe freedom is the key to the pursuit of happiness. We must be free to make mistakes and sometimes that means harming ourselves. I had a shopping addiction, racked up tens of thousands of dollars in debt. It hurt me and a long term relationship and my mother, who ended up supporting me when I lost my job during the recession. But I was forced to confront the underlying problems that drove me to shop for happiness, but only ever brought anxiety and guilt. I also had to learn how to write and follow a budget- a skill I consider priceless. I gained self-control and coping mechanisms so that I could do routine shopping and make necessary purchases. If someone had the authority to take over my finances and put me on an allowance, I would have turned to other more destructive behaviors in an attempt to gain control over my life and never would have learned anything or improved myself. I don't feel any of the negative effects or bad feelings from screen time. If I, or anyone else, does feel negatively affected by screen time, it is our personal responsibility to change our lifestyle.
Yes humans are social beings and we seek social support; but, when people feel bad, or sad or guilty, they often withdraw and become reclusive. I call it "hermitting", it's what I do when my depression gets out of control, even though social support is what I need. Something that helped me cope and hedged suicidal feelings the last time was actually interacting with others in a depression forum online. It made me feel useful, and gave me a sense of purpose to provide a friendly ear and supportive attitude, and even a little advice or perspective. I know there are plenty of toxic interactions online, but that doesn't deter me from seeking the positive ones. I have the right to free association and again I counter that screen time is not harmful.
I lash out because I do not like other's thinking they have the right or the responsibility to protect me from myself. I lash out because I do not tolerate authoritarians. I think capitalism is awesome- Not cronyism that is incorrectly called capitalism in the US- and I'm not worried about profit driven advertisers. Their motives are clear. Most expecting parents, especially first timers, probably are struggling with tough questions. I'm actually the most sure and confident about my life and future that I have ever been. I'm not even scared about labor. I'm 36, secure in who I am and not only my relationship with, but the quality of the father my baby. I know myself pretty well, I didn't post for subconscious reasons. What makes me think you ascribe to helicopter parenting and stranger-danger nonsense is over-protective nature of the idea that not only are we all addicted to our devices, but we are blind to the addiction and the harm you claim it is causing. It's people who think they know better than the parents that report kids walking to the park or playing in the yard alone to the cops. People who think it's the state's responsibility to educate kids because the parents aren't capable.
I'm glad your not offended, as that wasn't my intention. But I haven't considered changing my mind or actions. I haven't even questioned my position. Actually, authoritarians tend to bring out my stubborn side, drive me to dig in even more. I get it honest from my grandmother and mom. We got along best when we weren't trying to tell each other what to do.
Next >>