The concept of the "state" mandating it's role in educating the conscious mind of my children is terrifying to me- and it should be to everyone else as well. Also, compulsory schooling in the US became law out of fear of Catholicism and ignorant beliefs that immigrants and poor people could not educate or provide moral guidance for their own children. Like religion, the state is not immune from the perversions coming from the will of those in power. And just like religion, the purpose of state education is ultimately the indoctrination of young people to be obedient to the will of the state.
All forms of media have had some ties and dependence on advertising, but that doesn't mean the media is poisoned. It's simply a financing mechanism. Radio, television, and the internet connect people to art and information that is made more affordable and accessible through advertisements. Unfettered access to art and information is exactly the kind of things authoritarians suppress to prevent dissent. Your claims that the devices which provide platforms for speech, connections with people we never would have met in person, education, opportunities to take in, interact, and create art and music, are causing us psychological damage, because we are potentially influenced by advertisers- whose motives are nakedly profit driven. And it's this unknown "we", who are some how self-appointed to save the children?
No thanks and mind your own business! I actually trust the artist and writers on television to entertain my child, even if it means I have to say no to some material requests, over some agent of the state. I am 36 and expecting my first child; her father and I have already decided on un-schooling our future children. Un-schooling includes media and technology alongside free play indoors and out, hands on activities, real world exposure and interactions with with kids of all ages and even adults. We don't need you or anyone else to interfere with how we or any other parents raise our families.
Your claims that letting kids watch tv- instead of the helicopter parenting and micro-managing every waking moment into organized activities (which is proven to cause actual harm)- is irresponsible parenting akin to the sort of things junkies do is condescending and inaccurate. Working parents aren't being lazy or irresponsible for allowing or expecting their kids to entertain themselves, including spending time in front of a screen. Society has chased kids indoors, I'm part of the last generation of kids that could play outside unsupervised (something tells me you support constant supervision out of baseless stranger-danger paranoia).
No, I'm not an addict and addiction is a serious matter that should not be diminished by the current moral panic. Like most people, I feel my life is enhanced by technology, not harmed. It's not your responsibility to "save" me from myself.
Why is no one responsible for their own behavior? Whether a person engages in an activity compulsively, or simply enjoys the fad du jour, we are constantly jumping from moral panic to moral panic. From riding bicycles to reading novels, to masterbation, to drinking, gambling, listening to the radio, watching TV, talking on the phone, playing D&D, reading comics, watching porn, playing video games, chatting in chatrooms, and engaging on social media. Most of us can moderate how often we touch ourselves and watch porn, even if we enjoy it to the point of chaffing. Most of us can moderate how often we drink to drunkenness or only a beer with dinner without any struggle. Is checking our phones for likes and social interactions really that much more addictive than the quest or sexual gratification, the escape of intoxication, or even the thrill of winning, be it bragging rights or cash? You need "grayscale" to help you control yourself? Puh-leese! Phone "addiction" is just the most recent bullshit moral panic from people who clearly don't have any real problems to worry about. And stop trying to control the closest form of freedom kids have and demonize phones and maybe they will be more interested in looking up from their devices to have an actual conversation with eye contact.
Fair points, there are some highly skilled propaganda artists. However, none of the FB memes/posts or tweets were a demonstration of those skills, and they didn't saturate the population. Russian activity was tied to users who associated with right-wing subjects or groups; democrats and independents were not targeted. People didn't radically change their minds because of Russia or fake news. People who wanted to believe or were predisposed to believe in the propaganda bought into it and had no interest in fact checking. Comparing the content and tone of RT and Breitbart, RT is more accurate and reliable. I would argue that American trolls had a greater influence mobilizing the nationalist-populist base that back Trump. I see the hysterics around Russian propaganda activity on the left to be nearly the same as the right's accusations of George Soros financing every movement they don't like. Americans are not so oppressed that they have to suffer the propaganda of any source or group of sources without the ability to find the truth for themselves; the biggest hurdle we face is willingness to question our own beliefs and values.
I'm a Delaware resident, and I know I read some where a couple of years ago that our police had these devices and the NDA. It is of absolutely no surprise that only one law maker was willing to comment, there is a ridiculous number of ex-cops in our senate and house, and anyone that wasn't a cop is a badge-licker anyway. Our state has this thing called SLEAF, which are the funds from civil asset forfeiture, which the police are free to collect and spend as they see fit. Only recently did we get a pathetic concession that SLEAF was no longer exempt from FOIA- except the police get to decide exactly what, if anything, is not actually exempt. Stingrays were almost guaranteed to have been purchased using secret SLEAF money. So parallel construction, probably rampant and not likely to come to light because prosecutors have no problem waiting out defendants - incarcerated in a prison (jail overflow) that rioted over conditions a year ago- reluctant to take a plea deal. We've passed bail reform, but we have yet to see how it will be enacted. It doesn't surprise me that our cops use secret technology to subvert our rights instead of actual police work within the bounds of the law. After all, when my Mom's car was stolen and we went to the station to get the release paperwork when it was found, we asked the cop "are you done collecting evidence and prints from the car so we can take it home?", the response was "We're not Columbo ma'am" (Hmm, suddenly makes sense as to why there was bullet proof glass between the officers and the general public interacting at a reception area)
Can anyone cite an example of a viral fake news story, which wasn't revealed as fake, or wasn't revealed as fake until the story had lost popularity and thus nobody really noticed? And I'm not talking about a story with incorrect information that was corrected almost immediately, or a story where sources were not verified, but it came to light that the story could not be confirmed and was no longer considered credible. Does anyone know a person or people who changed their mind or decided who to vote for because they read some propaganda in their social media news feed? I hear an awful lot of complaining about how fake news and Russian propaganda influenced the election, but no one complaining that they personally were influenced to vote in a manner that they were not already predisposed or inclined to vote. No one is shouting, "Help! I was tricked! All of my friends on social media inundated me fake news and I didn't realize that I should have scrutinized the credibility of the source! These internet companies should have protected me!" Mike is right- end users are responsible for their own media literacy. It's pretty damn insulting that folks on the left and the right suggest that the general population needs some sort of authority to protect us from thinking for ourselves. To be honest, we should try not to get too mad at the platforms for making missteps when moderating content- they are trying to do it themselves to avoid more government intervention. We need to give them constructive criticism and ask for more user controls so that those who want to wrap themselves in a bubble can do so without forcing everyone into the same bubble of conformity. I don't think it's a good thing to shield one's self from everything that might trigger you, but it's not my position to force anyone to engage in the marketplace of ideas who doesn't want to. It makes logical sense to me to determine a definition of harassment, as it applies to speech that infringes on the rights of others (thinking along the lines of the phrase that the right of my fist is limited to the distance of another person's jaw)
While it appears you are misinformed about how the Title II designation was used (and specifically not used), you agree that there are lot of problems with the structure of ISP business and deployment. I understand your inclination for a legislative solution. As a libertarian, I'm not a fan of unaccountable bureaucracies. However, with the fast pace of technology, whatever rules we have, they must be agile and adaptable. Congress moves at glacial pace, they have been generally hands-off in the net neutrality issue, up until this year when they used the much easier and less politically consequential congressional review process to strip privacy protections. Whatever legislation we eventually get, good or bad, will basically be permanent, regardless of how the world of internet service changes. Seems to me that congress would better serve the people by ensuring we have a transparent agency, that is responsive to the public and the fast paced nature of the industry, instead of trying to write legislation about technology they don't understand (Things like "a series of tubes", "a neighborhood bridge" and "Obamacare for the internet" come to mind). The other issue with a legislative fix, that even though congress should be more accountable to the voter, corporate interests have far more sway. Considering we have been trying to get legislation for Dreamers for 17 years, but got tax reform in a couple of months; tax reform that that the telecoms and cable companies teamed up with their unions to make a very public agreement to give raises and bonuses to workers if the tax reform went through. I'm not criticizing the tax policy, but it's a clear demonstration that net neutrality legislation would bend to the telecom and cable company favor. Lastly, we ended up in this duopoly/oligopoly situation due to legislation from congress, laws that were enacted 30 to 100 years ago. The FCC has a more flexible structure that could be better utilized. It just needs to have it's powers checked.
I don't have the patience to read convoluted technical code, but I feel confident that it does not dictate that any and every business, organization, affiliation, person or entity must obtain proof that any person(s) the entity conducts business or a voluntary transaction with is legally permitted to be in the US and that conducting business or transactions without verification of a person's legal status equals aiding/abetting/harboring if the person's status is found to be illegally present. Being in the US without legal status is not a "crime", it is civil violation, which is different. It is not as simplistic an issue as you and many others wish to see it. Clearly the humanitarian aspect does not appeal to your cold heart, and I doubt you give a shit about the entirely broken system that forces people to cross the border undocumented in order to survive. Fortunately for you, you don't have to open your home to or employ any immigrants- they don't want anything from you. They don't even want the US's "welfare"- people who think this obviously don't know how shitty our welfare system is, especially compared to the welfare states in most other first world nations. Actually, all that's really needed from you is that you simply mind your own business and don't raise hell when others fight to fix the system under some nonsense pretext that immigrants are in anyway harming your personal interests or the safety of the nation. I'm a Libertarian and a humanitarian. Everybody needs to stop putting so much effort into controlling what others are doing and start focusing on their own actions.
I think you might have mistaken what I was saying as be adversarial or argumentative, and may have missed the points I was trying to make. I see "rights" differently than "necessities". I am free to exercise my rights to the degree that it does not infringe on other's rights; it does not take any participation, whether voluntary or coerced, of any other persons to exercise my rights. For necessities, I can freely go about my business, as in working for income, to provide for my own needs in a series of voluntary transactions with grocers, landlords, and physicians. If I am unable to procure, as in afford, any of those necessities, I am at the mercy of the goodwill of others. I might find charity, I might sleep on the streets. If we have the "right" to have our necessities met, there would be no homelessness. Libertarians believe in voluntary efforts of good will and charity, as opposed to government programs- which are rife with corruption and cronyism. We also are against all of the laws and regulations that prevent people from taking care of themselves (like job licensing, home business regulations that make lemonade stands illegal) or prevent people from taking care of others (like local codes that fine people for feeding the homeless, or seize tiny homes given to the homeless). The government has not demonstrated moral superiority, that it acts with benevolence, or that is has any of the non-connected individuals best interest in mind. When I talk about government intervention and distortion into the healthcare market, I'm not railing against Medicare and Medicaid- I'm on Medicaid. While the creation of these two programs did distort the pricing mechanism, the real problem was the government (at the urging of the AMA) placing arbitrary caps on the number of students allowed to enter residency programs and the number of medical licenses issued. The government increased demand while reducing the supply, driving up the price. And local governments have placed more artificial restriction on medical care by writing "certificate of need" laws that just like local ISP, hospitals use CON laws to prevent competing providers and hospitals from coming to town. And similar to the lack of competition in ISP in that there are laws that have been in place for a really long time, with thoroughly entrenched lobbyist that control politicians, there is no chance that cronies are going to relinquish power for the good of the people. We are actually lucky that Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Charter haven't succeeded with the same level of regulatory capture over the FCC that the drug companies have over the FDA- though they are getting closer. And it is because of this crony power and regulatory capture, which do not exist- at least not to the same extent- in other nations with fairly successful universal healthcare that I think precludes the possibility of replicating such a system in the US. (Also, as much as I don't want to give any kind of pass to insurance companies, the ACA actually put 10% and 15% caps on how much insurance companies could profit from premiums, the rest must be spent on care. Premiums and out of pocket costs aren't rising to make them rich, it's to pay the rising costs of healthcare). I think the hostility towards capitalism comes from the pervasive cronyism that is falsely called capitalism. The problem isn't that businesses operate to turn a profit, the problem is when businesses use the government to control consumers and/or competitors. That's cronyism and it drives up costs, drives down quality and variety. Also, before you call libertarians "sociopaths", you should look up the definition of sociopath, as well as the history of progressives. My belief system is based on freedom and inherent goodness of mankind. Progressives, well I don't think you will find words like freedom and inherent goodness. I think you will find some disturbing and disgusting motivations behind policies that progressives still stand for today; while those motives do not represent progressives of today, does a different motive change the outcome of the same idea? Good intentions pave the way to hell and all....
To be honest, I don't think healthcare could ever become a fully free market system because government has been intervening and thus distorting the system for too long. I think libertarians tend to forget the population demographics have changed over the past century; namely people are living much longer and we have a population of seniors to care for. But, is healthcare a right? Certainly it is a necessity for human survival, like food and shelter; and it's not okay in the minds of libertarians that people go without any of those things simply because they cannot afford it. Is healthcare a right in the same sense as one's freedom of conscience or to go about our lives without government intrusion, or to act in self defense? Not exactly. No one has the right to walk into a pharmacy and demand a cancer drug or asthma medication be handed over at no cost, no different than one could expect to walk out of the grocery store with a bag of free food, or get a free motel room for the night. Taking these things would be considered theft and trespass, right? You could walk into a hospital in an emergency and expect to get life saving care (which you will likely be billed for, but not necessarily) not because of a natural right or because the government says so; hospitals would provide care because doctors swore an oath for their profession and they are fundamentally good people. Libertarians rely on the goodness of others and spontaneous cooperation instead of government force, and it's not as naive as some might think (think Cajun Navy, crowdfunding success, and all the good or polite things you do not because it is the law, but because it's just who you are) We are usually quite compassionate people, we just disagree with others on the best way to help our neighbors. I was actually in favor of Obamacare, and I still feel it was an ambitious, though flawed, attempt to fix major problems. For now I think it's better to fix it than repeal it because repealing it does nothing to address the all the prior legislation that drove up the cost of healthcare. But I'm against medicare for all because I think the government has shown that it is irresponsible with our tax dollars, has zero understanding of how a budget actually works, will pay politics with spending- from how much eat state gets based on the party in power and the party of that state's reps, to what type of care it will or will not pay for (medical marijuana, birth control, methadone), priorities for who gets care and who waits. Just think about the VA- no thanks. We think it's better for people to create their own contracts with each other than for the government to dictate one size fits all rules. Net Neutrality is different because the ISP are government sanctioned monopolies which the rules are limiting the powers of (like the way the Constitution is supposed to limit federal government power) Consumers have few to no alternative ISP to negotiate a contract that fits their needs and therefore are powerless against ISP abuse.
I'm a libertarian and I support net neutrality. I really appreciate Mike's posts that explain the necessary "evil" of some government regulation. I read Reason, FEE, Cato blog, and watch Kennedy daily. I follow people like Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amosh on Twitter. The conservative/Libertarian perspective is similar to ancap in that government intervention is always bad, and that Pai is a free market hero. In nearly every other arena, I agree 100% and these are the minds that I fill my personal bias bubble with. But not on net neutrality, I totally disagree with my peoples because just as Mike explained above, my peoples are ill informed. I wish some of these brilliant minds would take a moment and read Mike's explanation of how he changed his mind, and how net neutrality, if done correctly, is supported by revered economist like Hayek and Friedman. The only point I sort of disagree with Mike about is using the phrase "market failure". This term turns us free market believers off. And truthfully, how could it be a market failure, if since internet became a service provided by telecoms and cable companies, it hasn't actually been in a free market, and therefore has not actually been tested and thus cannot be deemed a failure. Both telecoms and cable companies have sprung from government regulations put in place at the dawn of their respective technologies, and thus have never been free markets. Just a thought about bringing the conservative or libertarians around on this. Maybe net neutrality needs a little re-branding, into something like cronyism policy reform- or "CPR", some sort of catchy acronym and phrase like "pumping the data vital to consumers even when the cronies don't"- but a much better idea than I'm spitballing.
Google's talks of de-ranking or downranking certain Russian news (does that need scare quotes?) is a response to public and Congressional pressure to "DO Something!". I'm not even sure it was a bad idea for them name a few sites specifically, because maybe that will appease these jokers looking to suppress free speech and they will shut up and go away; one can dream can't she? I mean, does anyone seriously think bumping down articles from RT or Sputnik, refusing to sell ad space to Russians, and whatever other nonsense that has been proposed for tech companies to prevent foreign influence is going to actually going to work? The Russians will never figure out that they could pay for ad-space with Bitcoin? Or create a whole different news platform, that may present itself as from an allied nation, and actually targets a different audience? Come on! And is there anyone out there who feels as though they were duped by Russian trolls, memes and/or articles from RT, to such a degree that they actually decided or changed their mind on whom to vote for? Know why nobody is claiming that they were personally influenced, because the propaganda was simply confirmation bias for a narrative they already believed. Russians didn't create themes to sow discord among us, they selected from issues that were already points of contention. Personally, I would rather have more personal flexibility in adjusting the settings of my search results, or news feeds, than for Google or Facebook to decide what to protect me from. I have the sense and ability to make sure my sources are credible, and come from a variety of viewpoints. If there is a market of people who have trouble vetting their news sources, than the tech industry should serve them on demand.
Re: Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality
Yes! Yes! Applause! I am Libertarian and believer in free markets too! But this isn't a free market, hasn't been since we started getting internet directly from the phone and cable companies, which have always been under government regulation. This is the perfect example of what makes liberals (which I'm not using as a slur or in a derogatory manner because liberal is not a dirty word) have animosity towards capitalism and free markets. This is cronyism that is pretending to be capitalism, which it's not even very good at. It is not a result of the failure of free markets, it is the result of a failed privatization of a government monopoly.
I think you're right about this. The incumbents will only step far enough away to get out of responsibilities, but will keep a toe in enough to exercise control and get [more] future tax benefits. Even if they relinquish the control, and actually allow a new ISP, they aren't going to hand over the tax dollars they took/kept in advance of service delivery to a newcomer. Hard wireline deployment is expensive, and a newcomer may also have to contend with the cable provider just to access the existing infrastructure (and who knows what kinds of arrangements existing telcos and cable companies have over access that they will use to frustrate possible competition). If they want to abandon their wireline services, then they should be held to the exact same terms I mentioned above in exchange for deregulation, and ensure one-touch make-ready legislation is passed universally.
As a Libertarian I am a firm believer in free markets; greedy corporations are only able to take advantage of consumers without market backlash because they chip away at market freedoms by lobbying for rules and regulations that ultimately destroy competition. That said, telephone and internet service has never really been a free market (Internet was back when it came from companies like Prodigy and AOl). From the very beginning of telephone service, the government jumped in and created the Ma Bell monopoly. Even when the government "privatized" phone service back in the 80s, Ma Bell was only broken into 4 regional companies, which have pretty much reabsorbed into the big 2, AT&T and Verizon. Claiming that internet and phone service- whether wired or wireless- is a robust market of competition is delusional and a lie. If these companies want to be deregulated, then they need to get every local level, competition squashing piece of legislation repealed. Then, for every tax break and subsidy deal they cut and did not fulfill their end 100%, they must return or pay the back taxes proportional to what they did not meet per the contract, plus interest and fees just like any other business that owes back taxes. I have no idea what the most fair way to return the money to the consumers is, but in light of the behavior the government permitted the telcos to get away with, it damn sure doesn't belong back in their hands to mismanage further.
Even if some how managed to wrap my head around the possibility of the officer sustaining an injury from such a small dog, with the owners in such close proximity, that would would be serious enough to warrant medical treatment, and support an actual lawsuit (as opposed to filing a claim against their homeowner's insurance), I can't find the slightest understanding as to why the cop didn't warn the owner that he would kill the dog if she did not get control of it. The officer claims to have swung his baton at the dog twice- which the family must not have seen, or they would have seen him unholster his gun or at least been aware that officer was uncomfortable with allowing the dog freely "escort" them back to the house. How can the department defend discharging a firearm in such close proximity to children and innocent bystanders, against a non-deadly, questionable "threat"? I mean, if the dog was so aggressive, repeatedly charging him, that means the dog would be a moving target, and therefore more risky to fire upon with unpredictable bystanders, unaware of intentions, so close by. I just don't see how the police department wouldn't consider his actions as reckless. And the remarks the cop reportedly made to owners should be a huge red flag that he is sociopath or psychopath and thus a liability.
I would like Facebook to help me otherwise avoid being triggered, as I could be a danger to myself or others. For instance, whenever I am cyberstalking my ex- a white male- I will need fb to remove any posts or status updates that indicate he is in a new relationship, getting married, has a successful career or is in anyway, even momentarily happy without me. Please add 40lbs to his photos and 60lbs to any females in his photos. And those smug people who want to rub their happiness in my face, announcing engagements, pregnancies, or worst of all- sharing pics of their tropical vacations with them shamelessly posing in a swimsuit- I will go postal if I have to look at one more "happy" announcement. So purge that stuff from my view because it offends me and forces me to binge on oreos, ben & jerrys, and cheap wine.
Dear Facebook, I have already taken advantage of the assorted account settings to unfriend, unfollow, and block bigoted people from my social circle; I also set my visibility to prevent these unsavory types from directly reaching or looking in on me. Please do not censor anyone because not only would I prefer to determine whether or not I wish to keep someone in my social circle by seeing the supposed "hate-speech" and the context it was used, but I do not want to unknowingly associate with someone whose vulgar posts have been scrubbed away like they never happened. Facebook may be forced to do this in other nations, but the US prefers self-defense.
Depending on the specifics of Hong Kong's legislation, the USTR may just have to bend if they want access to those potential consumers; the policy isn't described very clearly, but it appears that they promote and facilitate breast feeding. The other nations mentioned above all have policies regulating (ie limiting) the advertisement of formula and baby food. I don't want to defend big pharma, but not all of their marketing is evil or harmful to the consumer. Ever suffer from persistent acid reflux, get a few free samples from your doctor to try, and finally get some relief from one of those products? I have, and that marketing allowed me to try a few expensive medications without having to pay for the ones that didn't work, like the older ones that I had bought over the counter. Now most of those same drugs are available over the counter (it was quite a few years ago) and I can clip coupons to use with my purchase, that's more marketing. If marketing is severely limited, or even prohibited, like in Indonesia, consumers are not able to obtain free samples or coupons. And because formula is not tolerated by infants like breast milk, the industry has developed numerous formulations to meet the demands of the consumers; Indonesia's consumers have to buy each kind at full price until finding the right one. How is that protecting consumers? And what's more, who decided that mothers should be forced to breast feed, and if that is not possible that government social workers and pediatricians- those supportive services- should be the ones deciding what kind of formula a parent is allowed to feed their infant? That means that instead of advertising and promotional offers that the consumer evaluates,companies are making campaign contributions and flying pediatricians to tropical islands for "formula summits". Now I can't get on board with USTR complaints about using the term "natural", but that's because I'm against them rigging the market in their own favor as well. Free markets. Free choices. (Are my Libertarian colors showing?)
On the post: Everything That's Wrong With Social Media And Big Internet Companies: Part 2
Re: Re: Where is personal responsibility?
All forms of media have had some ties and dependence on advertising, but that doesn't mean the media is poisoned. It's simply a financing mechanism. Radio, television, and the internet connect people to art and information that is made more affordable and accessible through advertisements. Unfettered access to art and information is exactly the kind of things authoritarians suppress to prevent dissent. Your claims that the devices which provide platforms for speech, connections with people we never would have met in person, education, opportunities to take in, interact, and create art and music, are causing us psychological damage, because we are potentially influenced by advertisers- whose motives are nakedly profit driven. And it's this unknown "we", who are some how self-appointed to save the children?
No thanks and mind your own business! I actually trust the artist and writers on television to entertain my child, even if it means I have to say no to some material requests, over some agent of the state. I am 36 and expecting my first child; her father and I have already decided on un-schooling our future children. Un-schooling includes media and technology alongside free play indoors and out, hands on activities, real world exposure and interactions with with kids of all ages and even adults. We don't need you or anyone else to interfere with how we or any other parents raise our families.
Your claims that letting kids watch tv- instead of the helicopter parenting and micro-managing every waking moment into organized activities (which is proven to cause actual harm)- is irresponsible parenting akin to the sort of things junkies do is condescending and inaccurate. Working parents aren't being lazy or irresponsible for allowing or expecting their kids to entertain themselves, including spending time in front of a screen. Society has chased kids indoors, I'm part of the last generation of kids that could play outside unsupervised (something tells me you support constant supervision out of baseless stranger-danger paranoia).
No, I'm not an addict and addiction is a serious matter that should not be diminished by the current moral panic. Like most people, I feel my life is enhanced by technology, not harmed. It's not your responsibility to "save" me from myself.
On the post: Everything That's Wrong With Social Media And Big Internet Companies: Part 2
Where is personal responsibility?
And stop trying to control the closest form of freedom kids have and demonize phones and maybe they will be more interested in looking up from their devices to have an actual conversation with eye contact.
On the post: Censorship By Weaponizing Free Speech: Rethinking How The Marketplace Of Ideas Works
Re: Re: viral fake news
I see the hysterics around Russian propaganda activity on the left to be nearly the same as the right's accusations of George Soros financing every movement they don't like. Americans are not so oppressed that they have to suffer the propaganda of any source or group of sources without the ability to find the truth for themselves; the biggest hurdle we face is willingness to question our own beliefs and values.
On the post: Harris Stingray Nondisclosure Agreement Forbids Cops From Telling Legislators About Surveillance Tech
Our state has this thing called SLEAF, which are the funds from civil asset forfeiture, which the police are free to collect and spend as they see fit. Only recently did we get a pathetic concession that SLEAF was no longer exempt from FOIA- except the police get to decide exactly what, if anything, is not actually exempt. Stingrays were almost guaranteed to have been purchased using secret SLEAF money.
So parallel construction, probably rampant and not likely to come to light because prosecutors have no problem waiting out defendants - incarcerated in a prison (jail overflow) that rioted over conditions a year ago- reluctant to take a plea deal. We've passed bail reform, but we have yet to see how it will be enacted.
It doesn't surprise me that our cops use secret technology to subvert our rights instead of actual police work within the bounds of the law. After all, when my Mom's car was stolen and we went to the station to get the release paperwork when it was found, we asked the cop "are you done collecting evidence and prints from the car so we can take it home?", the response was "We're not Columbo ma'am" (Hmm, suddenly makes sense as to why there was bullet proof glass between the officers and the general public interacting at a reception area)
On the post: Censorship By Weaponizing Free Speech: Rethinking How The Marketplace Of Ideas Works
viral fake news
Does anyone know a person or people who changed their mind or decided who to vote for because they read some propaganda in their social media news feed? I hear an awful lot of complaining about how fake news and Russian propaganda influenced the election, but no one complaining that they personally were influenced to vote in a manner that they were not already predisposed or inclined to vote. No one is shouting, "Help! I was tricked! All of my friends on social media inundated me fake news and I didn't realize that I should have scrutinized the credibility of the source! These internet companies should have protected me!"
Mike is right- end users are responsible for their own media literacy. It's pretty damn insulting that folks on the left and the right suggest that the general population needs some sort of authority to protect us from thinking for ourselves.
To be honest, we should try not to get too mad at the platforms for making missteps when moderating content- they are trying to do it themselves to avoid more government intervention. We need to give them constructive criticism and ask for more user controls so that those who want to wrap themselves in a bubble can do so without forcing everyone into the same bubble of conformity. I don't think it's a good thing to shield one's self from everything that might trigger you, but it's not my position to force anyone to engage in the marketplace of ideas who doesn't want to.
It makes logical sense to me to determine a definition of harassment, as it applies to speech that infringes on the rights of others (thinking along the lines of the phrase that the right of my fist is limited to the distance of another person's jaw)
On the post: FCC Backs Off Plan to Weaken Broadband Definition, But Still Can't Admit Limited Competition Is A Problem
Re:
However, with the fast pace of technology, whatever rules we have, they must be agile and adaptable. Congress moves at glacial pace, they have been generally hands-off in the net neutrality issue, up until this year when they used the much easier and less politically consequential congressional review process to strip privacy protections. Whatever legislation we eventually get, good or bad, will basically be permanent, regardless of how the world of internet service changes. Seems to me that congress would better serve the people by ensuring we have a transparent agency, that is responsive to the public and the fast paced nature of the industry, instead of trying to write legislation about technology they don't understand (Things like "a series of tubes", "a neighborhood bridge" and "Obamacare for the internet" come to mind).
The other issue with a legislative fix, that even though congress should be more accountable to the voter, corporate interests have far more sway. Considering we have been trying to get legislation for Dreamers for 17 years, but got tax reform in a couple of months; tax reform that that the telecoms and cable companies teamed up with their unions to make a very public agreement to give raises and bonuses to workers if the tax reform went through. I'm not criticizing the tax policy, but it's a clear demonstration that net neutrality legislation would bend to the telecom and cable company favor.
Lastly, we ended up in this duopoly/oligopoly situation due to legislation from congress, laws that were enacted 30 to 100 years ago. The FCC has a more flexible structure that could be better utilized. It just needs to have it's powers checked.
On the post: Washington State AG Sues Motel 6 For Handing Over Guest Registry Info To ICE
Re: 8 USC 1324
Being in the US without legal status is not a "crime", it is civil violation, which is different.
It is not as simplistic an issue as you and many others wish to see it. Clearly the humanitarian aspect does not appeal to your cold heart, and I doubt you give a shit about the entirely broken system that forces people to cross the border undocumented in order to survive. Fortunately for you, you don't have to open your home to or employ any immigrants- they don't want anything from you. They don't even want the US's "welfare"- people who think this obviously don't know how shitty our welfare system is, especially compared to the welfare states in most other first world nations. Actually, all that's really needed from you is that you simply mind your own business and don't raise hell when others fight to fix the system under some nonsense pretext that immigrants are in anyway harming your personal interests or the safety of the nation.
I'm a Libertarian and a humanitarian. Everybody needs to stop putting so much effort into controlling what others are doing and start focusing on their own actions.
On the post: The Free Market Argument For Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see "rights" differently than "necessities". I am free to exercise my rights to the degree that it does not infringe on other's rights; it does not take any participation, whether voluntary or coerced, of any other persons to exercise my rights. For necessities, I can freely go about my business, as in working for income, to provide for my own needs in a series of voluntary transactions with grocers, landlords, and physicians. If I am unable to procure, as in afford, any of those necessities, I am at the mercy of the goodwill of others. I might find charity, I might sleep on the streets. If we have the "right" to have our necessities met, there would be no homelessness. Libertarians believe in voluntary efforts of good will and charity, as opposed to government programs- which are rife with corruption and cronyism. We also are against all of the laws and regulations that prevent people from taking care of themselves (like job licensing, home business regulations that make lemonade stands illegal) or prevent people from taking care of others (like local codes that fine people for feeding the homeless, or seize tiny homes given to the homeless). The government has not demonstrated moral superiority, that it acts with benevolence, or that is has any of the non-connected individuals best interest in mind.
When I talk about government intervention and distortion into the healthcare market, I'm not railing against Medicare and Medicaid- I'm on Medicaid. While the creation of these two programs did distort the pricing mechanism, the real problem was the government (at the urging of the AMA) placing arbitrary caps on the number of students allowed to enter residency programs and the number of medical licenses issued. The government increased demand while reducing the supply, driving up the price. And local governments have placed more artificial restriction on medical care by writing "certificate of need" laws that just like local ISP, hospitals use CON laws to prevent competing providers and hospitals from coming to town. And similar to the lack of competition in ISP in that there are laws that have been in place for a really long time, with thoroughly entrenched lobbyist that control politicians, there is no chance that cronies are going to relinquish power for the good of the people. We are actually lucky that Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Charter haven't succeeded with the same level of regulatory capture over the FCC that the drug companies have over the FDA- though they are getting closer. And it is because of this crony power and regulatory capture, which do not exist- at least not to the same extent- in other nations with fairly successful universal healthcare that I think precludes the possibility of replicating such a system in the US. (Also, as much as I don't want to give any kind of pass to insurance companies, the ACA actually put 10% and 15% caps on how much insurance companies could profit from premiums, the rest must be spent on care. Premiums and out of pocket costs aren't rising to make them rich, it's to pay the rising costs of healthcare).
I think the hostility towards capitalism comes from the pervasive cronyism that is falsely called capitalism. The problem isn't that businesses operate to turn a profit, the problem is when businesses use the government to control consumers and/or competitors. That's cronyism and it drives up costs, drives down quality and variety.
Also, before you call libertarians "sociopaths", you should look up the definition of sociopath, as well as the history of progressives. My belief system is based on freedom and inherent goodness of mankind. Progressives, well I don't think you will find words like freedom and inherent goodness. I think you will find some disturbing and disgusting motivations behind policies that progressives still stand for today; while those motives do not represent progressives of today, does a different motive change the outcome of the same idea? Good intentions pave the way to hell and all....
On the post: The Free Market Argument For Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, is healthcare a right? Certainly it is a necessity for human survival, like food and shelter; and it's not okay in the minds of libertarians that people go without any of those things simply because they cannot afford it. Is healthcare a right in the same sense as one's freedom of conscience or to go about our lives without government intrusion, or to act in self defense? Not exactly. No one has the right to walk into a pharmacy and demand a cancer drug or asthma medication be handed over at no cost, no different than one could expect to walk out of the grocery store with a bag of free food, or get a free motel room for the night. Taking these things would be considered theft and trespass, right? You could walk into a hospital in an emergency and expect to get life saving care (which you will likely be billed for, but not necessarily) not because of a natural right or because the government says so; hospitals would provide care because doctors swore an oath for their profession and they are fundamentally good people. Libertarians rely on the goodness of others and spontaneous cooperation instead of government force, and it's not as naive as some might think (think Cajun Navy, crowdfunding success, and all the good or polite things you do not because it is the law, but because it's just who you are)
We are usually quite compassionate people, we just disagree with others on the best way to help our neighbors. I was actually in favor of Obamacare, and I still feel it was an ambitious, though flawed, attempt to fix major problems. For now I think it's better to fix it than repeal it because repealing it does nothing to address the all the prior legislation that drove up the cost of healthcare. But I'm against medicare for all because I think the government has shown that it is irresponsible with our tax dollars, has zero understanding of how a budget actually works, will pay politics with spending- from how much eat state gets based on the party in power and the party of that state's reps, to what type of care it will or will not pay for (medical marijuana, birth control, methadone), priorities for who gets care and who waits. Just think about the VA- no thanks.
We think it's better for people to create their own contracts with each other than for the government to dictate one size fits all rules. Net Neutrality is different because the ISP are government sanctioned monopolies which the rules are limiting the powers of (like the way the Constitution is supposed to limit federal government power) Consumers have few to no alternative ISP to negotiate a contract that fits their needs and therefore are powerless against ISP abuse.
On the post: The Free Market Argument For Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: What's a Free Market ?
I read Reason, FEE, Cato blog, and watch Kennedy daily. I follow people like Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amosh on Twitter. The conservative/Libertarian perspective is similar to ancap in that government intervention is always bad, and that Pai is a free market hero. In nearly every other arena, I agree 100% and these are the minds that I fill my personal bias bubble with. But not on net neutrality, I totally disagree with my peoples because just as Mike explained above, my peoples are ill informed. I wish some of these brilliant minds would take a moment and read Mike's explanation of how he changed his mind, and how net neutrality, if done correctly, is supported by revered economist like Hayek and Friedman.
The only point I sort of disagree with Mike about is using the phrase "market failure". This term turns us free market believers off. And truthfully, how could it be a market failure, if since internet became a service provided by telecoms and cable companies, it hasn't actually been in a free market, and therefore has not
actually been tested and thus cannot be deemed a failure. Both telecoms and cable companies have sprung from government regulations put in place at the dawn of their respective technologies, and thus have never been free markets.
Just a thought about bringing the conservative or libertarians around on this. Maybe net neutrality needs a little re-branding, into something like cronyism policy reform- or "CPR", some sort of catchy acronym and phrase like "pumping the data vital to consumers even when the cronies don't"- but a much better idea than I'm spitballing.
On the post: Russia Threatens To Go To War With Google Over Stupid Comments By Eric Schmidt
I mean, does anyone seriously think bumping down articles from RT or Sputnik, refusing to sell ad space to Russians, and whatever other nonsense that has been proposed for tech companies to prevent foreign influence is going to actually going to work? The Russians will never figure out that they could pay for ad-space with Bitcoin? Or create a whole different news platform, that may present itself as from an allied nation, and actually targets a different audience? Come on!
And is there anyone out there who feels as though they were duped by Russian trolls, memes and/or articles from RT, to such a degree that they actually decided or changed their mind on whom to vote for? Know why nobody is claiming that they were personally influenced, because the propaganda was simply confirmation bias for a narrative they already believed. Russians didn't create themes to sow discord among us, they selected from issues that were already points of contention.
Personally, I would rather have more personal flexibility in adjusting the settings of my search results, or news feeds, than for Google or Facebook to decide what to protect me from. I have the sense and ability to make sure my sources are credible, and come from a variety of viewpoints. If there is a market of people who have trouble vetting their news sources, than the tech industry should serve them on demand.
On the post: FCC Plan To Use Thanksgiving To 'Hide' Its Attack On Net Neutrality Vastly Underestimates The Looming Backlash
Re: Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality
This is the perfect example of what makes liberals (which I'm not using as a slur or in a derogatory manner because liberal is not a dirty word) have animosity towards capitalism and free markets. This is cronyism that is pretending to be capitalism, which it's not even very good at. It is not a result of the failure of free markets, it is the result of a failed privatization of a government monopoly.
On the post: FCC Moves To Gut Rules Protecting Broadband Users Telcos No Longer Want
Re: Re:
On the post: FCC Moves To Gut Rules Protecting Broadband Users Telcos No Longer Want
Re: Re: Re: Re: it is such a shame....
On the post: Deputy Shoots Family's Terrier; Complains About Cost Of The Bullet
On the post: Facebook 'Hate Speech' Rules Protect Races And Sexes -- So, Yes, White Men Are Going To Be 'Protected'
On the other hand
And those smug people who want to rub their happiness in my face, announcing engagements, pregnancies, or worst of all- sharing pics of their tropical vacations with them shamelessly posing in a swimsuit- I will go postal if I have to look at one more "happy" announcement. So purge that stuff from my view because it offends me and forces me to binge on oreos, ben & jerrys, and cheap wine.
On the post: Facebook 'Hate Speech' Rules Protect Races And Sexes -- So, Yes, White Men Are Going To Be 'Protected'
Triggered
I have already taken advantage of the assorted account settings to unfriend, unfollow, and block bigoted people from my social circle; I also set my visibility to prevent these unsavory types from directly reaching or looking in on me. Please do not censor anyone because not only would I prefer to determine whether or not I wish to keep someone in my social circle by seeing the supposed "hate-speech" and the context it was used, but I do not want to unknowingly associate with someone whose vulgar posts have been scrubbed away like they never happened. Facebook may be forced to do this in other nations, but the US prefers self-defense.
On the post: Want To Promote Breastfeeding? That's A Trade Barrier, Says US Trade Rep
I don't want to defend big pharma, but not all of their marketing is evil or harmful to the consumer. Ever suffer from persistent acid reflux, get a few free samples from your doctor to try, and finally get some relief from one of those products? I have, and that marketing allowed me to try a few expensive medications without having to pay for the ones that didn't work, like the older ones that I had bought over the counter. Now most of those same drugs are available over the counter (it was quite a few years ago) and I can clip coupons to use with my purchase, that's more marketing. If marketing is severely limited, or even prohibited, like in Indonesia, consumers are not able to obtain free samples or coupons. And because formula is not tolerated by infants like breast milk, the industry has developed numerous formulations to meet the demands of the consumers; Indonesia's consumers have to buy each kind at full price until finding the right one. How is that protecting consumers?
And what's more, who decided that mothers should be forced to breast feed, and if that is not possible that government social workers and pediatricians- those supportive services- should be the ones deciding what kind of formula a parent is allowed to feed their infant? That means that instead of advertising and promotional offers that the consumer evaluates,companies are making campaign contributions and flying pediatricians to tropical islands for "formula summits".
Now I can't get on board with USTR complaints about using the term "natural", but that's because I'm against them rigging the market in their own favor as well. Free markets. Free choices.
(Are my Libertarian colors showing?)
Next >>