It's hard to map this onto my framework of "reasonable paranoia". Even while I felt uncomfortable about it, it never occurred to me that Twitter would actually cut off access. Now here we are.
It's hard to map this onto my framework of "reasonable paranoia". Even while I felt uncomfortable about it, it never occurred to me that Twitter would actually cut off access. Now here we are.
Local water systems in Guam are privatized, much to the chagrin of local activists.
Elsewhere, there's an article on the guardian just like yesterday about the impact of privatization on either the UK's or some locale inside the UK, for their water usage. Basically the water department is now the highest debt entity in all water departments and it's the one that's privatized.
Privatizing public data is a shortsighted thoughtless approach to public communication.
So Play stupid games went stupid prizes.
Coming from the UK I don’t want competition in basic utilities like there is there. I don’t want to have to shop around for the best energy price every year, or to be at the mercy of the free market on pricing for the most basic of necessities like power and water.
It's the hysterical marching cry of young naive people railing against the ever-increasingly vague boogeyman of neoliberalism but the actual evidence doesn't back it up.
You talk about ideology over logic while demonstrating that exact same thing.
> The AER report contains no consistent correlation between higher bills and privatisation.
> The ABS index of electricity prices across Australia, showing movement of electricity prices over time, also doesn't demonstrate a link between privatisation and price rises.
> Whether comparing electricity bills, prices or the relative price index of electricity in each state, there is no consistent link between privatisation and what consumers pay for their electricity.
> Experts say the biggest influences on what people pay for electricity are costs of transmission and distribution. They say these costs have risen in recent years irrespective of whether the owners of the transmission and distribution networks are privatised.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-25/fact-check-does-priva...
Will you entrust your well-being to CEOs and boards whose sole priority is relentless growth and maximizing profits, regardless of the consequences?
Laws can only do so much to prevent vital resources from becoming unaffordable for the very people who deserve them. These companies, with no regard for your, the citizen's, vote or input, prioritize profits above all else. To them, it's just another business move, leaving the consequences behind as they move on to the next venture.
You can argue and consider other ideas, but the higher risk in the private side is always there.
And they are easily reigned in by the Australian Electricity Regulator, while governments owned businesses are not.
We recently had a price cap put on coal and gas prices, private companies had to eat a massive loss, government owned generators huffed and puffed until they got billion dollar bailouts from the rest of the nation for their coal guzzling power plants that should have been shut down years ago had they not been taxpayer liabilities.
There's simply no evidence of these things driving up prices. We have a huge government owned pumped hydro power storage project underway that has blown out from $2b to $10b in the spacce of a few years, if this was privately owned it would have gone bankrupt, instead more and more cash from electricity users will eventually have to be paid to fund it. It's costing 5x more than simply putting grid scale batteries in the cities and the government has sunk cost fallacy that it can't walk away from.
This is the problem with government ownership of electricity assets in Australia, politics gets completely in the way of good decision making and projects that should have failed long ago.
As I said before, where's the evidence, because all I see is ideology.
This is what happens when governments run electricity projects:
> He assured the electorate it would cost $2 billion and be up and running by 2021.
> By April 2019, a contract for part of the project was signed for $5.1 billion — and that doesn't include transmission costs, which will cost billions more.
> Who will actually pay for transmission is still being decided.
> "Someone's going to pay for it," Snowy Hydro CEO Paul Broad told 7.30.
> "The taxpayers will pay for it through your taxes, or you pay for it through your bills.
The current cost is $10b and the project has blown out to the end of the decade. No one is admitting how far they've dug or the status of meeting targets. The transmission bill is still up in the air but will likely be an additional $5b added onto household bills.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-14/snowy-hydro-2.0-expen...
Also, the LNP have proved time and time again they can't build any public infrastructure.
Their Inland Rail project is another total disaster, a project wasting many more tens of billions and achieved absolutely nothing.
And how can anyone forget the failure that was the LNP re-design of the National Broadband; a design that moved away from fiber optic to instead use copper wire.
Put up your "logic" rather your ideology if you want to convince people otherwise. Downvotes don't count sorry :)
Prices are the cheapest in Victoria, with full privatisation of the network. Prices are also most expensive in South Australia, with nearly full privatisation of the network. No rational person can look at that and proclaim there is a correlation.
We have states with nearly all generation, distribution and transmission being government owned, we also have states completely out of the business. This should be a simple slam dunk to people who loudly make these easily proven claims and yet they never have any proof.
Prices are rising uniformly across the board, including in the heavily government owned states, which coincidently are the worst at rolling out renewables because they are protecting their fossil fuel golden eggs at the expense of the environment.
https://theconversation.com/myths-not-facts-muddy-the-electr...
While interesting time capsules one wonders whether Lynne Chester holds the same opinions today or has updated the prices tables 2007-2014 with more current data.
Personally I'd look less at the month to month prices and more at the decade on decade projections .. what are the winning long term strategies for cost effective power generation with the "lowest bad for climate" emmissions totals.
Is it a coincidence that Western Australia (WA), a state with the most government regulation in regard to LNG exports also has the lowest LNG prices by a long margin?
In general WA, has the most regulated energy sector with the highest level of public ownership in electricity production and transmission, and by strange coincidence it also has the cheapest gas, cheapest coal and lowest electricity prices.
The profit motive.
I don't actually think the Australian grid is a good example of privatisation failure. There's little proof that we have meaningfully lost anything aside from the marching cry of the left.
Did we gain anything? I ask in earnest, I don't know.
I can guess that the cost of running, maintenance, etc are now "not a cost of the state", but the cost doesn't just disappear, it was always on the consumer via tax or bills (or tax and bills, hopefully in a way that sums to the same cost!).
As it pertains to power, People tend to promote government as a means to make it cheaper - but this is sort of a fallacy - the only way the government can do it cheaper is if it's operationally more efficient to a significant degree. I don't see how a government achieves this. Private energy generators are usually not very profitable - the people making money were commodity producers, recently, not electricity generators.
It’s not just cheaper, it takes the privatised profits off the table and instead feeds them back.
It’s not magic, it’s pretty good sense though, and it serves the people of the state well.
and the only place to stumble onto information is where one spends the time - facebook, reddit, heck - even hackernews
It's not where I would look for information. But that assumes I know I should be looking.
Only to the extent allowed by news websites headers. Maybe this whole thing could have been solved by politicians understanding tech a little better?
How often do we hear, on HN and elsewhere, people complain about laws they don't like wish politicians better understood what they are legislating? This implies the existence of a technological solution, set by technocrats who "understand" better. Whoever asks the question suggests politicians don't know better, offering that explanation without proof.
Also, for the Free Market enthusiasts out there, why hasn't the market solved this problem? What forces are preventing all parties from working out a technical and economic solution?
This is like mandating car makers to pay whip makers.
> Also, for the Free Market enthusiasts out there, why hasn't the market solved this problem?
Why are assuming the market hasn't solved it? And that too without proof?
> Whoever asks the question suggests politicians don't know better, offering that explanation without proof.
It is easy. There is zero discussion of technology beyond sharing of links in the bill.
Goodbye Meta and Google and other greedy foreign exploiters and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
So they can never make mistakes and be blame free in any scenario?
> refusing to extract their wealth if it can not be done for free, and you're entirely correct.
Yes, now they can keep all their wealth with them. Why are they complaining? Why fret over this if extraction is being stopped by these companies shutting down link sharing?
> Goodbye Meta and Google and other greedy foreign exploiters and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Yes, it is the foreign companies who are greedy and not rent seeking mega news corps who want $$$ for linking to them lol.
There are no large media companies in Canada, just independent journalism pure in heart and no commercial intent. /s
> greedy foreign exploiters
So xenophobia is a cause for this action?
The law was about news media, Facebook shutdown a bunch of unrelated govt services pages in retaliation.
Facebook definitely deserves a lot of blame. Likely in this case too. I'm pro capitalist as much as the next guy but laws are by the people, if a business wants to extract money from our community it needs to play by our rules.
Facebook cutting access is like a badly raised toddler throwing a tantrum.
> I'm pro capitalist as much as the next guy but laws are by the people, if a business wants to extract money from our community it needs to play by our rules.
Wait, if FB was extracting money, wouldn't FB shutting down linking cause more money to flow into news orgs? Shouldn't you celebrate this as it will reduce the "extraction"?
Why fret over this if extraction is being stopped?
If news orgs truly believe in extraction, they would be celebrating this shutdown in the streets.
> Facebook cutting access is like a badly raised toddler throwing a tantrum.
In the free world, we are allowed to choose our actions to some extent.
It is very clear that it is due to them not wanting to comply with bill C-18.
Reported on by every major news outlet that I’ve seen
https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/2014/dec/12/google...
It remained closed until 2022 when the law was changed and newspapers were allowed to negotiate directly with Google individually.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-news-re-opens-spai...
> The move comes in reaction to the federal government's Online News Act, Bill C-18, which would require the tech giant to pay Canadian media companies for linking to or otherwise repurposing their content online
IMO this should be illegal.
Google is more like a malaria carrying species of mosquito. Little bites that you barely notice, but in aggregate are actually much more dangerous.
I know the metaphor is a bit stretched but even in the late 90’d it was clear what Microsoft did. Google has gone from “don’t be evil” to “this is the definition of open source” to …
Of course my point was that the mosquito, whose bite is far less “annoying”, is actually #1.
[0] https://www.sciencealert.com/what-are-the-worlds-15-deadlies...
These same government spies run an international network of torture centers.
And I can guarantee you they are going to bring in high priced consultants to do the work because no government or board of education is going to ever pay software developers their market value and have them on their payroll.
Open source is more secure is just as much of a fallacy.
In a given month, as a consultant I’m working with clients that use Slack, Teams, Google Meet, Zoom, and if I’m initiating a meeting, Amazon Chime.
I wish, the US government, was like that full of decisive, well intentioned, intelligent boot strapped innovators but the motiff of government projects are things like:
One bathroom stall at build costing millions and years behind schedule
City trash bins costing hundreds of thousands
Airplane trash bins costing tens of thousands
And the list certainly Curtis go on those are just the recent ones I’ve read about.
I’m watching a government software replacement worth tens of billions and seeing the attempt to integrate is painful. They sure aren’t agile.
I don’t work in tech.
How are they ever going to be able to compete for talent?
You'd need to convince people to side-load an app from a government website, or install a government app store.
Signing up for a Twitter account is free and can be done by literally anyone in the organization.
The answer is because Twitter is easy and free. Self-publishing is neither.
i think the real question is when, not if, we end up with public infrastructure.
The government built the Internet. They can host a website.
Hint: it's not the second one
No change control there either.
But why? It’s always been that way. Before Twitter, it was private radio stations, private TV stations or private newspapers.
In the end it’s still private companies (with the exception of public broadcasters or websites).
You were able to access those news for free. Without any account. Once you had a radio or a tv, it was free and accessible for everyone.
Not the same for Facebook or Twitter. Even if technically free, you can be banned, or have your account deactivated because you didn’t give away your phone number as “security measure”.
It's not obtuse, there are a ton of similarities.
Also is for example BBC private company?
You can listen to TV and radio stations for free without an account or subscription and they can't cancel you (unlike FB/Twitter/etc).
Newspapers tecnically you had to buy, but reading the headlines at the newstand was free and you could always go to the library of coffee shop to read the whole thing for free.
How is Twitter any different than FOX News or CNN?
There's a big difference.
Governmental and public institutions should not be relying on Twitter for their communications. It's unprofessional at the very least.
You wouldn't put quotes around that word for cell-phone companies using licensed bandwidth, or airlines using public airspace, would you?
And they are not private. The public is legally entitled to receive anything broadcast over the radio spectrum. And as I and another poster have already pointed out, there are government licensing and carriage requirements involved with TV and radio broadcasters.