85
86

Someone argues that net neutrality = communism. Holds fast against a whole thread of downvotes to keep telling people they're wrong. (np.reddit.com)

Dalimey100 が 投稿

全 110 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]TheLadyEve [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

*favor

That cracked me up--you'd think he would have encountered British English spelling differences at some point in life by now.

[–]PyreDruid [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Let's be fair, when all you do is listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio it's hard to tell how he spells words, the American or British way.

[–]mizmooseHated At Every Size [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

A better analogy would be electricity. Imagine if Edison (or whoever provides your power) charged you different rates depending on what you used the power for?

People in my complex believe this happens.

The HVAC units in the apartments are very (very) old and outdated, and hideously inefficient. Combined with thin walls, in the winter the electric bills can get insanely high.

The complex owners tried to stem complaints about this by telling the tenants that the power company charges a higher rate for people with these HVAC units, and their complaint should be with the power company.

Some of my idiot neighbors actually believe this shit.

[–]BrowsOfSteelliterally Emmanuel Goldstein [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Imagine if Edison (or whoever provides your power) charged you different rates depending on what you used the power for?

No imagination necessary. It actually worked that way in the early days: electricity for lighting was cheaper than for other purposes.

Toasters came with Edison screwbase plugs to cheat the system.

[–]BrowsOfSteelliterally Emmanuel Goldstein [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

You know what else is communism?

[–]is_this_workingmods eunt domus! [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

Everything is communism!

[–]ratcap [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

http://i.imgur.com/p66g2HF.png

[–]Bibbity-boppity [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Man, it never ceases to bum me out when I see kids in these kinds of photos.

[–]kaalaaaaGirls just message me here. :D [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Anything that doesn't follow the most puristic free market ideology is communism.

[–]Geek1599Jet Fuel can't kill six million jews [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I am not Jesus. He was a fictional character.

IN THIS MOMENT, I AM EUPHORIC.

[–]PuffmaisMachtFreibecause 'arbeit' sounds too much like work [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's was a pretty obvious troll, but I'm sad that noone took the bait.

[–]Wrecksomething [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

Common carrier regulations are communism. See: telephones, railways, mail carriers. What right does the government have to regulate businesses that public dollars built?

[–]SolarAquarionThe zionist disrupter known as SolarAquarion [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

AnCaps

[–]Vivaldist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

This guy would make a fine addition to Liberland.

[–]PuffmaisMachtFreibecause 'arbeit' sounds too much like work [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If only to be a rube to get swindled out of all his cash by people with half a brain.

[–]BolshevikMuppet [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Which makes sense in cases where "you'll be a common carrier y'all" was part of the original deal for creating the utility or (as with mail carriers) it actually began as a government agency.

Broadband is privately owned, and while you can argue government subsidies were part of it, that'd be like saying "since you used the home mortgage deduction, your house is actually part of a public trust."

[–]This_place_blowsDepressed, Disabled. Misanthrope. [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

They were given huge amounts of money to expand broadband access to less profitable places and they didn't do shit. They redefined the word broadband and stuff their pockets with cash.

[–]BolshevikMuppet [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Was part of the law which granted that subsidy "and those who take this money can be regulated akin to a public utility"?

Or are we just saying fuck it to the fifth amendment and the whole concept of a regulatory taking?

[–]Bibbity-boppity [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

That's actually a good point, but I think the person you're disagreeing with has the right idea, and is just using the wrong logic to get there.

A common carrier is a common carrier. Some were state-initiated; many weren't. If you move packets place to place (whether by sail, rail, or wire) and are nominally accessible to the general public, you're a common carrier.

The idea that a "common carrier" should be subject to special state scrutiny is ancient in the common law system. In contract law, for instance, common carriers are one of the few defendants from which a plaintiff may extract damages for emotional distress (and emotional distress alone) as a result of breach of contract.

The theory behind this special status isn't particularly robust -- it really just boils down to public policy: most people want these services to work consistently and well, and the only objectors tend to be the people subjected to this higher standard. Which is why Comcast spends a lot on lawyers.

I agree with the tradition. It's one of those things where there isn't any good answer besides efficiency. It's just more efficient to regulate these kinds of utilities. Make them cheap, easy and good -- whatever resources you invest in this regulation, you're likely to make back many-fold in economic production.

[–]BolshevikMuppet [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

A common carrier is a common carrier. Some were state-initiated; many weren't. If you move packets place to place (whether by sail, rail, or wire) and are nominally accessible to the general public, you're a common carrier

Except that under common law systems going all the way back to Blackstone, there were privileges which came with being a common carrier, and it was voluntary. Which no one would object to here. It's why Fedex is a common carrier (it gives immunity from accidentally shipping contraband, for example).

The system of forcing a company to be a common carrier is much more recent, and at least in the U.S. has taken the form of either actual eminent domain, or a voluntary agreement when the rail lines (for example) were being laid.

FedEx is a common carrier not because it delivers stuff, but because it chose to be regulated as a common carrier. A non-common-carrier mail service would be entirely legal.

most people want these services to work consistently and well, and the only objectors tend to be the people subjected to this higher standard

Most people would like other people's property to be subject to what is best for them rather than the owner. Thank goodness for the fifth amendment.

It's just more efficient to regulate these kinds of utilities. Make them cheap, easy and good -- whatever resources you invest in this regulation, you're likely to make back many-fold in economic production.

Which makes sense if the question is whether we should set up a public ISP system. It doesn't answer whether (legally or ethically) we can force a company which doesn't want to be a common carrier, has never agreed to any contract which included being a common carrier, and has no benefits from being a common carrier, can be dragooned into being one because we want it.

Because I really want your house to be a public utility so I can crash on your couch whenever I want. That doesn't mean your house can be dragged into being a public utility without paying you.

[–]fuckthepolis2electric boogaloo [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Net "neutrality" would turn the internet into what cable TV is right now, paying $180/month for 300 channels I will never consider watching just to get the 20 I actually want!

Are they saying that they currently want every porn site that is on the internet or that there are only a handful of porn sites on the internet?

[–]ttumblrbots 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

  • Someone argues that net neutrality = co... - SnapShots: 1, 2, 3 [huh?]
  • (full thread) - SnapShots: 1, 2, 3 [huh?]

doooooogs: 1, 2 (seizure warning); 3, 4, 5, 6; send me more dogs please

want your subreddit archived?

[–]rnjbond [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

I love how there's literally one actual response to his post and the rest are just people calling him an idiot or a shill.

Reddit is a great place.

[–]Thefinalhack [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Some things are so stupid they don't even deserve a genuine response.

[–]rnjbond [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Are his points that stupid or do you find anyone who's against net neutrality to be stupid?

[–]Tykozy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Both.

[–]ParusiMizuhashiI take all of your flairs literally [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think anyone against Net Neutrality is stupid

[–]winterdwhitey's gotta pay, and the payment is baby hands [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Who the hell cares?

[–]rnjbond [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I do! That's why I posted about it!

I honestly feel Reddit is something of an echo chamber at times and this is evidence of that. A dissenting opinion is not only downvoted but just outright dismissed with insults and accusations of being a shill.

[–]winterdwhitey's gotta pay, and the payment is baby hands [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

When it's been disproven and argued about for months and months, people get tired of it. Maybe the free market will save him.

[–]rnjbond [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Reddit, what a great place!

[–]winterdwhitey's gotta pay, and the payment is baby hands [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

if you don't like it, work to actively change it (this does not mean complain at the bottom of random threads) or leave. Take control of your life.

[–]wiwille [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Never knew Ted Cruz was a redditor.

[–]lemonfreedomKrazy Kabal Kommunist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Gotta appeal to those millennials

[–]BolshevikMuppet [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

A better analogy would be electricity. Imagine if Edison (or whoever provides your power) charged you different rates depending on what you used the power for?

Except that electric companies were bought out and made into public utilities, or created as public utilities in the first place. That's not at all comparable to private broadband service.

[–]winterdwhitey's gotta pay, and the payment is baby hands [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Are you actually saying you don't support net neutrality?

[–]BolshevikMuppet [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

If we want public internet, we should do it right, eminent domain, public ownership, run as an actual public utility.

Treating private property as a public utility is legally, and ethically, less than 100% kosher.

[–]winterdwhitey's gotta pay, and the payment is baby hands [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Then we eminent domain all of their infrastructure or...something. I don't know. All I know is I'm really, really glad it isn't up to me.

[–]BolshevikMuppet [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And that's fine. Compensation for property taken for public use is how it's supposed to work. What I don't like is the idea of looking at private property and saying "we really want this to be a public utility, but we don't want to pay to take it from them, so we'll just treat them like they already are a utility."

Maybe it's coming from a western state where even water is private property which governments must purchase to be able to offer as a public utility, but I'm leery of forcing private entities to act like public utilities just because we want what they're selling.