129 karma · joined January 13, 2017
You're relying on the right people being in office/power making the right decisions in your opinion. But of course, at any point the wrong people can get into office and make the wrong decision in your opinion. For nearly half the country, that happened when Obama entered office, and then again when Trump entered office.
You're assuming that if the government didn't mandate health insurance, nobody would step in to help those people, which I don't believe is true. Lots of different groups – religious, businesses, municipalities, etc. – could fill that role. Individuals could even give directly to strangers in need through something like https://donorsee.com/.
I'm arguing against being forced to help others who I have no relationship with, live in far off places, hold different health standards than me, etc.
Believe me, if a family member of close friend needed help with medical expenses, I'd be the first to volunteer.
And is it really affordable, even for the unhealthy?
It doesn't have to be that way. By decentralizing decision making down to a level closer to the individual (if not the individual), more people get what they want. For example, right now there's a federal mandate for health insurance. Not everyone agrees with this mandate, so why not at least push it down a level to the states? California can still have a mandate for health insurance, and Alabama can decide not to. And then, why not push it to the city/county level? If you don't agree with San Francisco's mandate for health insurance, simply move to Oakland. You don't even have to move states, let alone countries.
Why do so many oppose such a solution where everyone can much more easily find a place where they agree with the "social services" offered (or not)?
There was an article just a few days ago by Farhad Manjoo entitled Google, Not the Government, Is Building the Future (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/technology/personaltech/g...) that I think captures your viewpoint well. I'd like to spend some time digesting it, after which I'll likely write some thoughts.
That said, both of those are good examples that I don't even mention in the article.
The real question behind that – and where we differ – is how the role of government fits into that.
If you believe government is inherently good and necessary to enable a "basic right" like the internet, then yes, of course, government should be the one to keep the internet open. This is Sam's view.
On the other hand, if you distrust government and believe their own interests for power and control are always in play, then handing them even more control of the internet is absolutely not the solution.
Knowing what we know of the NSA's mass-surveilance and CIA's targeted hacking and surveillance for unclear-at-best purposes, doesn't that at least give you pause about whether government should be the one to keep the internet open?
> The Winklevoss ETF proposal was rejected because the SEC found that the significant markets for Bitcoin tend to be unregulated overseas markets that are potentially subject to price manipulation. But this creates a chicken and egg problem. How do we develop well-capitalized and regulated markets in the U.S. and Europe if financial innovators aren’t allowed to bring products to market that grow domestic demand for digital currencies like Bitcoin?
> I don't think people's ignorance is a good reason to not protect them.
Even if there are some who are completely in the dark about privacy, this mindset would lead to regulation protecting people from literally everything, as there will always be people ignorant of something. I don't think it's the right default stance to take.
> We should not be forced into such a choice and the only way that will happen is regulation.
We have a right to privacy in the sense that we can choose not to use a product or service that invades our privacy. But we can't force our right to privacy on others.
The good news is, if there's a market for privacy-minded products, entrepreneurs will provide for that market. And I believe there is a market, because there's an increasing amount of privacy-minded alternatives.
> EDIT: then again, this will never happen, because where do you think the gov gets their information from!
Hah, this we can agree on! And I think it highlights an important point: How can we trust government to protect our privacy when they've been the biggest aggressor against our privacy?
Case in point: Pokémon Go. It didn't take long at all before they were exposed (http://adamreeve.tumblr.com/post/147120922009/pokemon-go-is-...) for requesting full access to your Google account. The subsequent outrage caused them to take a more privacy-minded stance.
My point being, this information is and can be made available to consumers without requiring government or regulation. A whole new non-profit organization could be established that does just that: researches and publishes privacy-related data on products/companies. It could even have a program that rates and awards gold stars to those that pass their requirements, like EFF's Secure Messaging Scorecard (https://www.eff.org/node/82654).
> This isn't holding the market back...
Regulation always makes it harder for new entrants to the market, while simultaneously keeping incumbents in power (because they're often large enough to handle the time and money required to comply). And with less competition comes less choice, poorer service, and higher prices.
It sounds backwards, but not regulating privacy actually makes it easier for privacy-minded companies to enter the market and find success.
If people don't care about privacy, then government is wasting their time creating regulation that doesn't matter to people. That's not useful.
If people don't know about the privacy implications of technology, is adding regulation the best way to inform them? There are lots of organizations like EFF that are much more effective with their resources to inform people compared to government. And wouldn't it be speculative to create regulation without first determining how people feel about it?
Don't get me wrong – I think privacy is extremely important – I just don't think government can address it nearly as well as the free market, which is much more in tune with how important it is to people.
Are the results as good? Probably not. But there's always a trade-off we make when choosing our tools. It's not always about choosing the one with the most features or the one that's most popular. Sometimes ideology matters, and I'd say that's the case for many who choose a search engine like DuckDuckGo over Google. I'm more than happy to trade not-quite-as-good search results for privacy – and I know that the more people who do, the better those search results will become.
I wouldn't write off software developers completely though. There likely are some who simply do what they're told without speaking up or questioning the decision, even though they know better / think differently. They stick Google Analytics on a site instead of raising the idea of using Piwik instead. Or they add Facebook and Twitter share buttons without asking whether they can be optionally loaded. Maybe they'll be shot down by a superior, or maybe the superior doesn't even care and allows the software developer to decide. Depending on the size of the software's audience, that small decision could make a substantial difference in privacy.
A positive decision is one that removes regulation or protects us from the government.
A negative decision is one that adds regulation or protects incumbents in the industry.
We can disagree on that, but we probably agree on the bigger issue: keeping a free and open internet. I want that as much as you probably do, I just don't believe government should play the role of guardian of the internet.
I see this specific decision as positive because it removes one more (albeit small) hurdle from competitors entering the market. Believe it or not, but all of this regulation protects the AT&Ts and Comcasts because they already have the infrastructure to comply. But a small, scrappy startup? It's hard enough building a quality service, but even harder when you have to devote a large chunk of time and money to even qualifying to play.
I am certainly not a shill, nor spreading propaganda for any one or any industry. I'm a software developer who works in a completely unrelated industry to telecom.
Look, we probably agree on the primary issue here: to maintain a free and open internet. I dislike the AT&Ts and Comcasts as most do here, and I choose not to do business with them.
Where we likely disagree is how to maintain a free and open internet. I don't believe the government should play that role, as they often (in my opinion) push for more and more control once their foot is in the door. That's not what I want.
> This is then kind of thing you see in authoritarian states and rather chilling.
No, actually, throwing labels like "shill" and "propaganda" at someone to discredit them and squelch their desire to speak freely is what you find in authoritarian states.
Every time I post an opinion that goes against the net neutrality norm, I'm accused of being an agent of the FCC or telecom industry.
Can I not hold an opinion that differs from the norm? I posted (in my opinion) a question to provoke thought and discussion in a completely non-trolling, non-harassing, non-toxic way.
> To overthrow or destroy (a government or an established order or authority).
Note the part in parenthesis, which is exactly why I chose the name for my site. I do not like the FCC, nor government in general.
How does that square with my original comment? In my view, one less government regulation is a step in the right direction. I want government to stop forcing itself into the role of regulator of the internet.
The reason I have a 43 day post history is because that's how long my site of the same name has been in existence. I've been a long-time reader of HN and commented (albeit rarely) under my own name for many years.
The reason many of my comments and submissions have been net neutrality related is because it's exactly the type of topic that my site deals with: technology and freedom. In addition to privacy, free speech & censorship, cryptocurrency & blockchain, etc.
What I've noticed is that almost every FCC decision since Pai took over has been spun as weakening net neutrality, which I think is incorrect and unfair.