No.1959
Oh fuck of witht his bullsoykaf, Europe wont adopt all the stupid soykaf the US does and never has. Most likely the EU will expand its NN legislature like Canada eventually. Actually this might be a positive event, too many digital services and companies are based in the US already. The fact that you refeered to it an EU 'constitution' shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.
No.1960
The larpers here cant even bother to get of a discord, why would they care about net neutrality?
No.1961
>>1959Canada has done more than the EU? Can you share some info on that? I'm legitimately surprised.
No.1962
Net neutrality is a fundamental part of the European "Digital Single Market" strategy, I doubt they will get rid of it. This strategy is actually something all member nations seem to agree with, or at least not oppose. If the USA gets rid of net neutrality they will probably use it lure smaller business that won't be able to compete on the American market into Europe.
No.1964
>>1962Yeah it would be impossible for the EU to have a functional digital single market without it.
No.1965
I'm not from the US so I obviously don't give a fug, but from my understanding their worst problem is a lack of competition between ISPs, whatever happens NN won't change a single thing about that. Seems like the whole thing is a diversion to hide that problem, I can definitely picture that controversy go on and lock the debate for 20 years while nothing is done about the problems underneath.
Anyway I'm neither pro or against, but if I were an ISP I'd probably tell you to go fug yourself if you tried to tell me what to do with my property. And if you helped me acquire it, then sucks to be you, you should have thought about that before rigging the economy fuggin statist. Now I can lobby ur mum to suck my dick
No.1966
>>1958One half of /g/ is praising NN end because "muh socialist conspiracy", another mark of decay.
Neither Europe nor the world actually needs the "US guidance" besides military matters, the more Americans lag behind, the better, can't let a country half-sane, half-inbred occupy the spotlight. Secede already
No.1975
>>1969It got rejected because of the French and Dutch votes,
>>1974 beat me to it, before being reactualized as the Treaty of Lisbon, who simplified the EU structure and gave birth to the two main legal documents structuring the Union but they are NOT called a "constitution".
Now yeah, there was a legal EU decision which protected Net Neutrality and made it into a principle, but I don't know exactly how. All I know is that there is a set of precise directives presented here :
http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_and_publications/whats_new/3958-launch-of-the-berec-net-neutrality-guidelines No.2000
>>1980>MegaCorps should censor people>MegaCorps should control dataHow is this good?
No.2009
>>2000They have the right to do whatever they want. If you want a different service, pay a different company or get a different service plan. Don't hand the government free power just because you think we have the right to point guns at luxury service providers because they aren't satisfying you the way you want.
No.2012
>>2010Mind breaking down that graph for me? Or could you link the source for me? I can't tell quite what it's saying. Is it showing that these percentages of households only have that many options?
No.2013
>>2012Yes, it says that 28% of household have only one provider available, 37% can choose from two providers, and 33% have 3 or more providers to consider. The remaining 2% has no wireline boreadband providers. The graph only considers households that receive broadband speeds of at least 10Mbps down / 1.5 Mbps up and is only concerned with wireline providers. So I guess the 2% is some kind of wireless access.
This is the source, page 11, the last column:
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db1224/DOC-324884A1.pdfNote that the picture says the source is from 2013, which is correct, but it's about 2012. In 2013 the 3+ was already at 65%, and today it is at 79%. For higher speeds it's worse, though.
2013, PDF page 11:
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1016/DOC-329973A1.pdf2016, PDF page 8:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344499A1.pdf No.2019
lmao here come the same americans that will defend that the victims of the latest mass shooting has to gofundme their healthcare
No.2020
>>2017Person who originally posted the pie, basically there are areas without competition so if you don't like your isp, get fucked. Or there's 2 and they're both garbage. So in theory this is great, in practice right now it isn't. For the consumer that is.
No.2021
>>2017>>2020It's not just Isp's it's almost everything. John Oliver does a really great episode on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bl19RoR7lc No.2024
>>2020I can at least understand where people are coming from now, but I still think Net Neutrality should go. At the end of the day, the internet is a luxury, not a right, and we don't get to point guns at ISPs because we want their luxury item the way we want it. When you own the equipment for your own service you can make it however you like.
I'm not willing to point a rifle at the ISP CEOs for something so selfish so I'm not going to advocate the government to do it because I don't want get my hands dirty.
No.2025
>>2024I wonder where you live for lack of internet access not to unduly interfere with your capacity for employment and socialization.
In my country that pretty much marks you as an outsider.
Also, maybe that idea works when your government isn't enforcing those monopolies by forbidding the installation of unapproved infrastructure (which for whatever reason includes tall antennas).
No.2026
>>2024internet is way too important in modern society, it should stand among bread and water.
No.2027
>>2017The relevant parts are one or two pages, you don't have to read the whole thing.
>>2024You can't even get a job without going online these days. It's certainly not a luxury.
No.2029
>>2024Is it bait? The internet has tremendously improved life of people all around the globe, and with the on-going dematerialization, it became a vital tool for everyday's life.
Guess what, the dematerialization of administrative paperwork was initiated under the premise that Internet was widespread enough. Guess what, "free, small business concurrence" war isn't suitable to everything, especially not infrastructures, and sometimes favoritism happens because in the real world you need economic stability.
We're not going back to 1920 because of the wet dreams of corporate lobbyists and their "muh Austrian economiks" mommy-dependent idea guys.
No.2033
>>2029It's not about its usefulness or even necessity for the fullest potential of the modern day experience, but just because something makes your life subjectively better doesn't mean that it's a right. That makes it a luxury, no matter how many people around you use it on the daily. You don't have a handicap - everyone else simply has an advantage.
Besides, the whole premise of Net Neutrality is bogus to begin with, and it boggles my mind how easily people buy into it. I've been trying to avoid it anyway because even if it was accurate it wouldn't change my opinion, but the companies aren't even slowing anyone down. There are no "slow-lanes". They don't exist whatsoever as far as I'm aware. There's just regular internet speed, and then there are fast-lanes. Companies can pay the providers to give their platform better service.
All NN does is ban fast-lanes. There aren't anymore "slow-lanes" because EVERYONE is in the slow lane. It's no different than whining about income inequality - people would rather be equally poor than put up with someone else having it better. But everyone's jumping on this Net Neutrality bandwagon anyway instead of thinking it through.
No.2038
>>2033>just just because something makes your life subjectively better doesn't mean that it's a right>something that got recognized as a right and pushed by institutions of every developed state is bad because I read it on the internetS'ils n'ont pas de pain, qu'ils mangent de la brioche. Wow kiddo, you really think you're spouting hard truths, don't you.
>inb4 not an argumentThis isn't even an argumentation, it's the usual reductionist fallacy we got served since two centuries when people were asking for the 8 hour day work. All major services, administrative, bank-related, fucking knowledge-related now are on the internet, fact. You had nothing to answer and returned to the good old bullsoykaf "rights hinder companies", "free market will fix it", "look at me I'm so woke". You're either underage or retarded.
It's strange that all it needed to realize that NN was the work of socialist devils was a retarded president pressured by ISPs while all jurists, politicians, businessmen of developed countries got fooled by the Marxist Master Plan™. Keep dropping those pill bombs.
No.2039
>>2033There are no slow-lanes because net neutrality is in effect. ISPs purposefully slowing down bittorrent traffic is a well known example of previously existing "slow-lanes," not to mention that there were also examples of ISPs denying access to certain websites, like ones critical of the ISPs practices.
No.2043
>>2038You say that I'm either underage or retarded but you're the one immature enough to start attacking my character instead of my words.
>>2039I'm just operating under the information I have. It takes a lot to convince me that the government should be given more power to control private companies. It may seem stubborn but it's something worth being stubborn about.
For record though, BitTorrent is flooded with illegal content, a surprising portion of which download straight from websites you'd need a Tor browser to access. So I'm not particularly swayed by the fact that they, as a private company - are not giving them the same speeds. My first instinct is to say that they have the right to do whatever they want, and I've yet to see a reason to believe otherwise.
Maybe I'm different from the rest of you because I haven't always had internet access, but it's not a right, and they don't have an obligation to put the same amount of time, money and effort into serving everyone equally. If UPS decided they would only have one facility with a couple of trucks in certain cities making local customers have to wait far longer than those in other cities, I wouldn't object.
Even telephones aren't a right - I see no reason the internet should be.
No.2045
>>2043But your words hold no meaning. It's all fallacies. You just spout the same theoretical generalities no matter what. You can go down the luxury ladder until you start explaining a home is a luxury and that men only need a bed and one change of clothes. You spout the very same basic theory while refusing to go down to the practical reality and claim that every legal change was not made to accomodate reality but because of corruption. Guess what, if "free market competition will fix it" was true and that simple, there would be no need for economical thought.
This lack of experience is the mark of an underage kid who only experienced the world through 4chan trolling or a retard. Or a shill, but I don't think they get paid to lose time on this website.
No.2047
>>2045>Everyone who disagrees with me is either a kid, a shill or a retard.You sound like a reasonable person to debate debate.
No.2048
>>2043I really didn't want to jump in this argument but after seeing this i cannot unsee.
>BitTorrent is flooded with illegal contentAfter the huge prosecution The Piratebay was suffering a lot of expert we're asked to see if piracy (Which you used the word illegal) as any down effect on corporate guess what the answer was no but the best was is that they benefit from it.
You are probably right to say that you don't you think differently (Which isn't bad by the way) but you cannot denied that having access to information, knowledge is what make a society better suit to do better choice. Piracy is what make the beauty of internet information is available to anyone that ask and seek it, you don't stole it because stealing something required a physical interaction. They are trying to disable the power of people to know. This is why i think the internet should be a right for everyone in the world. The telephone isn't the same thing as the internet. Yes it a method of communication, yet the internet provided much more then simple way to communicate. It's a open door on a world with frontier, where corporate and government shouldn't have a right to touch.
No.2049
>>2047There's no reason in fallacies. As I said, you just spouted theoretical, reductionist generalities while claiming to be right at the face of the world and standing on your "hard truths".
Guess what genius, property was never absolute, it never was a "right" either, and the State's role is to manage society's cohesion. If we put your imaginary capitalist paradise in practice, it doesn't take long before those absolute property rights get surrendered at gunpoint, like it happened in every soykafty oligarchy until now.
tl;dr Internet is not a right, but absolute property isn't either.
No.2050
>>2043Why do you pretend that you have no information? You keep repeating the standard "arguments" against net neutrality, almost like you are reading from a script. It's a bit scary.
I spent very long time without internet access or very limited access and resisted for a long time getting a phone. But guess what? Times change and today you are mostly unemployable if you don't have either. I'm sure there are cases where you can live without both, but for the vast majority of people it is a very serious handicap.
Comparing it to telephones in your case is not a very good tactic as they are considered to be a public utility and regulated as such. If Internet access would be considered to be a public utility it would certainly have net neutrality.
No.2051
>>2048We could fantasize all day on the idea that the the internet and anything beneficial at all really should be a right, but that's not how the world works. It's nice to say things like "everyone has a right to a basic income!" or "everyone has a right to the internet!" but how would you actually accomplish that? The internet is not some cheap, easily acquired service - it's monstrously expensive, and that means that everyone's going to be paying for it anyway through their taxes. Things don't just run on their own. Machinery must be built and maintained, workers must be payed to build it, etc. You simply cannot make something like that a right.
We have a right to bear arms in my country - does that mean guns are a right? No one is going to give you a gun. No one is obligated to give you one, just as no one is obligated to give you internet access. Even if we did have the right to access the internet, it does not mean that internet companies have an obligation to get it to you the way you want it when you want it.
No.2052
>>2050I'm actually surprisingly new to this whole Net Neutrality debate, and I have been completely transparent about my level of knowledge (or lack there of) of the subject. I'm working with what I know, what I've heard and what I think would and would not work. That's all I can hope to do.
Everyone's using words like "horrified" to describe how they feel about this issue and it's so emotionally charged that people start bitterly quarreling over anyone that disagrees, all encouraged by this pseudo-apocalyptic paranoia. It's like climate change or gun control after a mass shooting.
No.2053
>>2052Maybe you should be responsible and educated yourself on the matter before taking sides and then opening butthurt threads to complain about the damn commies, don't you think?
No.2054
>>2052Playing the devil advocate with incomparable thing like the right of knowledge and having a gun is showing that you should educated yourself before trying to debate like you do. You simply see the world in a box and you don't think outside of it. you're wasting everyone time without bringing anything to the conversation then your already premade opinion on how the world work. I'm questioning how the hell you got here.
No.2055
>>2053Two different threads. Not knowing the inside and outs of ISPs have absolutely know bearing on the hypocrisy pointed out in an entirely unrelated thread. Evidently I'm not the one getting anal here.
Half the people in this debate across the web know far, far less about it than I do, you only care about me because we hold opposing views
>>2054You're claiming that I only think in a box while you and everyone else here hold the exact same opinion on this subject. That's hardly thinking out-of-the-box on your part.
I don't know everything - I only know what I know. The only difference between you and I is that I admit that and don't shy away from it.
No.2056
>>2055You just claimed that you don't know anything and now suddenly those who disagree with you know "far, far less about it" than you do? Make up your mind already, are you going to play ignorant or an expert? This is not a news show, you can't be both at the same time.
No.2058
>>2055The level of hypocrisy. Listen you're the outsider here. You clearly don't share cyberpunk philosophy which mean that you don't think outside of YOUR box, plus you're admitting that you're playing the devil advocate simply for people to care. So you're volunteer loosing everyone time because you're a fucking contrarian because you want people to care.
Let me show you a rule the site has.
>Don't waste everyone's time. Anyone can play the Devil's Advocate. Anyone can be a hipster contrarian. You're not that fucking clever. No.2059
>>2056I never said I don't know anything, nor have I ever said that those that don't agree with me know far less. Reread what I actually said.
What I did say is that I hear constant, overflowing support from people even more ignorant ignorant of the information than I am, but no one cares to complain about that because they're on the same side. I was talking about the people who sit and watch John Oliver or Philip DeFranco and just accept everything they say about an issue as if it was the word of God
No.2060
>>2058I'm not playing the devil's advocate, I'm saying what I believe
No.2062
>>2060So you believe that we're delusional to believe that internet should be a right because it's improve the condition of human not only for the individual but also for a society and by believing in this fantasy which by your own statement do not believe that's anything beneficial on the same scale the internet is should be a right because? Oh yeah
>it's monstrously expensive.Which it's isn't. Most modern country has a right for education and i believe the internet fall in the same categories yet it's less expensive to set up then school does it mean you don't believe in the right for education?
You're doing the very definition of playing the devil advocate. Every single post you made didn't bring anything of value on your side of the fences to make me see what you so call "believe in". Explain to me how our point of view is so delusional and impossible to setup when your doing nothing than empty argument when are point of view is possible and as been seen many time through decades?
No.2063
>>2061Getting along with people as nothing to do with the philosophy of a theme site. I'm getting along other type of people that don't share my view it doesn't mean I'm left wing or Right Wing or Anarchist. You're are still the outsider of the philosophy you clearly do not believe in, which by the same extension doesn't mean i represent the philosophy of everyone but the website which is theme.
I'm not emotional about the topic i can assure you that. What I'm emotional about it the fact that you don't improve in anyway shape or form the conversation at hand, you only opposing every single opinion with empty arguments that don't stack up and now you're trying to antagonizing me simply because you felt left out.
People that are here are in majority embracing the philosophy that why they are here in the first place. As for you, which is opposing everything the cyberpunk philosophy is, and as for as i know philosophy doesn't represent people unless they state that it does. You're accusing me of tarnishing the reputation of a site with a condescending ton yet again antagonizing me. You all mighty sir, should probably get down of is high horse.
No.2064
>>2062You don't even know what playing the devil's advocate means, do you? Playing the devil's advocate is arguing for the "enemy's" side for the sake of the conversation. No one here is doing that, so stop repeating it.
>when are point of view is possible and as been seen many time through decades?Where in the world has the internet been made a Civil right, let alone "through decades"?
I'm not saying you're delusional, I'm saying you're idea won't work. Even our education system is a massive national expense, and plenty of areas would be far better off home-schooling to begin with. I have my own opinions about whether or not we should even have public education on a nationally mandated level, but that's not the point here.
The problem with making something a right is that it means the government has an obligation to provide it. That means that not only is it being payed for through our taxes anyway, but the quality is absolute garbage too. You should have a right to access the internet if you purchase an internet service, the same way you should be able to purchase a Gun. But you cannot make internet access a right. Give us the right to "bear" internet access if you must, but that's already legal
No.2065
>>2063>What I'm emotional about it the fact that you don't improve in anyway shape or form the conversation at hand, you only opposing every single opinion with empty arguments that don't stack upThose "empty" arguments are just my opinions, no different than the opinion of you or anyone else here. You talk about me antagonizing you but apparently all I have to do is oppose government control and suddenly I'm public enemy #1, an outsider who opposes all things "cyberpunk". There is nothing "punk" about handing over power to the elites.
I'm done bickering like this. I'll respond to the debate but I'm not going to bother defending my character against you on an anonymous image board
No.2066
>>2064
>Playing the devil's advocate is arguing for the "enemy's" side for the sake of the conversation.Re-read your own post.
>What is a fallacious arguments?
>No one here is doing that, so stop repeating it.Yes, you do so i won't, it's annoying and doesn't bring anything
>Where in the world has the internet been made a Civil right, let alone "through decades"?You are right, i miss wrote this part, i should have written "show". Because it has been theorize and demonstrate.
>I'm not saying you're delusionalYou might be right yet again, the definition of fantasize and delusional are similar.
>The problem with making something a right is that it means the government has an obligation to provide it.In the country I'm currently living there is free WiFi through out the city. Yes it's garbage but it's already available for everyone so i don't see where the problem is? It's true i don't know the price of such infrastructure but it's easily in place for the last 5 years minimum.
No.2068
>>2065Oh fuck i've made a mistake i forgot you're him
>>2043Please excuse me i've made a hugeee mistake i didn't pick up you were against gov well fuck me.
No.2071
>>2066I used the word fantasize with "we" as the pronoun there. I was just discriminate us thinking how great it would be. That's not delusion. My point was that it wouldn't work just because it sounds nice. I don't believe in utopia.
Where has it been demonstrated? If it's been demonstrated that means it's been done. Which it hasn't. Tell me if I'm wrong and it has indeed been done, but it doesn't sound like it. It'd be nice if it was true, considering how much we already spend on things that aren't useful at all, but as far as I'm aware it doesn't, just like any other national program like that.
It is interesting to think about though, because it's not healthcare or food. It's set up, it's maintained, but for the most part it would be relatively static. But the quality would be garbage, and it would drive up sky high the prices of services we would consider today to be average. I just don't see any scenario in which it's beneficial to set up open wifi networks covering the nation.
No.2072
>>2066We are digression from the main topic though. This was originally about NN, after all
No.2076
>>2071You come along, claim that we need to throw all our current society model because it doesn't work somehow (just like how Obamacare was "a disaster", wild words you can't answer to because they are vague and emotional), and we need to make our society a 1805 capitalist hell because it worked so well in the past, and suddenly quality and cheapness will flow while fuck those who can't afford it because it's not a right xD
But you don't believe in utopias. Sure. You're just an impressionable brat who follows internet gurus and believe he's smarter than whole institutions and two centuries of competent socio-economical/legal thought, even though you can't even form a basic problem statement. And they all come from the same country.
No.2096
>>2094>discussionYou're repeating the very same retarded premise since your very first post, ignoring every example of working social democracy (like every Western country ever) while pushing your lolbertarian utopia along under the pretext of realism and literally refuse to answer any argument. Every person living in reality is going to freak out on your burger "doctrine". You also didn't seem to have taken the trouble of answering any objection or example thrown at you, you're just listening to yourself repeating the same basic copypasta argument based on the red scare and "we" bullsoykaf.
Good riddance, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
No.2097
>>2094>>2096Just to add. I might seem harsh, but I'm really tired of hearing the very same bullsoykaf for ten years and even more if I knew English back then. It's first tiring, then infuriating to see people trying to fuck the life of others to fit in some original identity group. Why can't you people swallow your teenage complexes and accept that the world is a complex thing, that despite being important competition is neither natural (blobbing is) nor always desirable, that freedom is subjected to social harmony, and that every piece of regulation isn't part of the Stalin Scheme? Maybe you should educate yourself about the "free paradise" of the workers before the 1930s.
Want to feel smart? Make up something useful and share it instead of joining the lolbertarian klub.
At least I'm relieved to think that I'm an ocean away from you psychos. And no it's not a battlefield here despite what your favorite free news like to imply.
No.2098
>>1958>Are you in favor or against Net Neutrality?Honestly I don't know. It's obviously a positive for everyone here, but I don't see it as a righteous cause. Screw the corporations and all that but the government is the biggest one, and what's the difference between it forcing soykaf on smaller corporations and forcing soykaf on the average joe. I know I probably sound retarded but I can't wholeheartedly stand by net neutrality, as much as it benefits me. But then again, not everyone can hop ISPs, I've got only 2 selections and they're both meh. One of them also provides cable and the other was known to have "gaming packages" so fuck me. I can't figure out what I dislike more, government meddling, or potentially paying more for "gaming package".
I'm not a US citizen but it seems like my government made a net neutrality law as a reaction to Obama's, so I can't help you guys much but i'll be on my toes on this side.
No.2100
>>2098I think we all agree that it benefits us - there's no doubt about that. But like you I don't see it as a just cause. Just because I'd be a direct benefactor doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea
No.2105
>>1965Underrated post.
The feds and corps have us set up either way, and they only serve each other's interests. Check mate.
No.2122
>>2097>>2026> a car is way too important in modern society> a smartphone is way too important in modern society> a degree is way too important in modern society> a good haircut is way too important in modern societyA thing does not become a right merely as a result of its utility. You do not have a right to the fruits of somebody else's labor. Nobody is obligated to provide you with any goods or services that they worked to produce.
>>2038> Hon hon hon, I can speak exotically, so my opinion must be better than yours. Je peux faire semblant parler d'autres langues aussi.>>2049> property was never absoluteIs a man not entitled to the fruits of his own labor?
> the state's role is to manage society's cohesionOK Hobbes. You and your leviathan can fuck right off.
>>2058>You clearly don't share cyberpunk philosophyIf I don't conform to these same ideologies then I'm a square. Got it.
> which mean that you don't think outside of YOUR boxAnyone who doesn't agree with you is literally a cookie-cutter normal person. Got it.
>>2062>to make me see what you so call "believe in"Your inability to read is not anybody else's problem.
>>2096>>2097You don't want to respond to any actual arguments, so you resort to name-calling in a thread about politics in a country in which you do not reside. Please don't post if you're not going to add anything to the discussion.
>>2098>>2105Now we're getting somewhere. We'll never make any real progress as a society if we're just fighting over scraps while the establishment puts on a puppet show. We need smaller, more local ISPs. We need to be starting our own. We need to be fighting the laws that impede such startups.
No.2123
>>21222058 and 2062 were actually directed at me, but I guess he'd tell you the exact same thing anyway so your response is fair I guess
No.2129
>>2123I should clarify that I wasn't trying to claim to be the same people who made earlier posts. I was just weighing in on the conversation with my point of view. Sorry to respond to so many things in one post; I've been practically AFK for the last week or so because of the holiday.
No.2161
Arisuchan will likely not be a target if NN rules were to be repealed. The only affected businesses that will be affected are media websites and anyone that is in direct competition with ISP partners. This doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned, but Arisuchan will be totally fine with NN regulations being repealed. They are not going after smallfry people.
No.2163
>>2122>you do not have the right to the fruits of somebody else's laborAre you against wage labor? That seems like a much more malign form of parasitism than welfare can possibly ever be.
No.2164
>>2163That makes no sense at all. Welfare is taking money from someone better off and giving it to someone it doesn't belong to.
Wage labor is just saying "here, I'll give you this much money if you help me out in this way". That's it.
No.2165
>>2164Wage labor allows the owners of commercial and industrial assets to live off of the work of those they hire. The work is done by people who have no alternative but material deprivation and an early death, lacking the apparatus nessecary to work for themselves and be competative on the market, but all of the profit accures to the owner. This is no less theft because "voluntary" (irrefusable) contracts mediate the transaction. This is not to say that managerial labor is not important, because it absolutely is, but holding a managerial role and a slip of paper entitling you to the perpetual ownership of a piece of land, machinery, etc. is a poor excuse for appropriating the surplus generated by others.
No.2166
>>2165I don't even know where to start that's so outlandish. It's like you turned logic and reason itself on its head.
Companies aren't keeping people from working for themselves, they are people working for themselves who have hired people that want to work for them. If people want to work for themselves they can do that, the only reason people work for others is because it's more profitable - if it wasn't, then they'd be working for themselves. But most people don't have the ingenuity or work ethic to make something themselves, so they choose to work for someone else
No.2167
>>21641230
>soykaf, I need some land so that I don't starve>it seems the nobility has laid claim to all the land, which they have a hereditary military elite guarding>fuck it, what can I do but pledge my fealty and surrender a portion of my crop every year? still beats starving1950
>soykaf, I need some machinery so that I can produce products to exchange for food so that I don't starve>it seems that the bourgeoisie have laid claim to all of the factories, a claim which they have the police enforcing>fuck it, what can I do but apply for a job and have someone else make a profit off of my work? still beats starving2017
>soykaf, I need to be able to incorporate developments from the last few decades into my code so that I can produce software to exchange on the market for food so that I don't starve. I could also use a few servers.>it seems that a handful of companies own truly massive numbers of software patents, claiming all of the techniques that I would need to incorporate into my code as their own, and that these same companies have a stranglehold on the distribution infrastructure. The courts and police enforce these claims.>fuck it, what can I do but work 12 hours a day plus weekends for one of those companies? still beats starving No.2168
>>2166It doesn't manage how much ingenuity you have, if you don't have enough capital you can't possibly compete. Are you going to build cars in your garage and sell them, hoping you can compete with Ford and Toyota? Very rarely is it possible to be self employed. Working for someone else and thus making a profit for someone else is the only option most people will ever have.
No.2170
>>2169It's the simple fact that in today's modern age, you cannot compete with corporations, with net neutrality ending, it will become impossible as ISP's will block anything they don't like, they already have a huge record of doing this.
>blocking google wallet for mobile ISIS payment app (http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm)>blocking Netflix for ATT's DirectTV http://geekslop.com/2014/isp-throttle-netflix-streaming-video-service-fix-overcome-net-neutrality-problemsthere's more but if we don't do something they will just throttle everything.
https://www.battleforthenet.com/ No.2171
>>2161Today, they won't, today. it's not just about Arisuchan, it's the fact that if they have this power, they can continue throttling sites they don't like. If by chance they see people working /g/enternet project they could stop traffic to that site and stop collaboration as they might see it as a possible threat to their internet control.
No.2172
>>2171Especially since we already know from "Free Basics" that the idea of an "affordable" internet connection means access to hand-picked services.
No.2173
>>2169"Ownership" and "lay claim to" mean the same thing. Factories are built by construction workers, yet another group of wage laborers, not the people who own them. Even if you do consider the ownership of things you don't personally ever use to be legitimate, I don't see how this changes the basic fact that when you work for a wage you are making someone else a profit and thus being taken advantage of.
No.2174
>>2173If that qualifies as taking advantage than the workers are also taking advantage of an employer's willingness to pay them for work. Of course you are acquiring an advantage by doing something - if you weren't you wouldn't do it.
No.2175
>>2174The employers as a class are entirely superfluous and wholly parasitic. It is in the interests of all working people to disposses them of all assets so that they are able to keep the whole value of the fruits of their labor.
No.2176
>>2175Of course. Because blaming people as a class is a noble philosophy to pursue. You are aware that the only means of doing what you want is through violence, right?
This is so textbook communist it's like I'm listening to a villain out of a comic book.
No.2177
>>2176Blaming people as a class recognizes that capitalists are not necessarily bad people, they are simply acting in their own interests, which happen to be opposed to the interests of most people. If you consider seizing property that people aren't even using to be violent, then sure, it will be violent. If the establishment of political democracy required violence, why would the establishment of economic democracy be any different?
No.2178
>>2177Because political democracy is about securing rights for the people, not taking what is rightfully owned away from certain groups of people.
Do you know what "seizing property" is? Stealing. And doing so violently is just a fancy way of saying "armed robbery". It's despicable, and is shameful to even say in the same breath as political democracy.
Evidently we have two completely incompatible worldviews and aren't going to change either of our minds on Net Neutrality, so let's get back to the topic and not make this about whether or not the proletariat should be taking up arms against their own neighbors for being wealthy
No.2179
>>2178Returning from the tangent I took the thread out on, I actually agree with you when it comes to whether or not there should be right to the internet. In order for acess to the internet to be guaranteed by some organization, governmental or otherwise, either 1) peering agreements would be have to reached somehow between the municipal broadband or what have you and backbone providers, who would be understandably wary about having their assets in the country nationalized and would thus underinvest in their infrastructure in the region or 2) you would have a subsidized regulated monopoly with public money lining private pockets or 3) you could build a new free system from the group up (currently virtually impossible for anyone who doesn't have eminent domain powers) and government agencies aren't allowed to compete with the private sector like that. At this time, a right to the internet is impractical, and I don't think it's worth agitating for when aqueducts are falling into disrepair. The best that can be hoped for is that website administrators use this as an opportunity to remove bloat and states use this as an opportunity to stop giving out subsidies to telecom companies , after pissing away millions on fiber that never materialized.
No.2180
>>2179> At this time, a right to the internet is impractical, impractical? People in the modern day cannot live without the internet, so much is dependent on it, saying you don't internet is like saying you don't need power or a car, "technically"
you don't, but realistically, you do.
No.2181
>>2180There has been so much deffered maintainence that internet service is pretty far down on the list of priorities for public investment. I'd much rather have potable water and roads that are safe to drive on in the rain than decent broadband.
No.2182
You people voted for these people to represent and lead you. You deserve everything you get. You're also the most heavily armed civilian population on the planet whose country was founded on the basis of not putting up with being fucked over. So when you complain on the internet I have very little sympathy.
No.2183
>>2182The candidates are selected through profoundly undemocratic political parties, the media is highly consolidated, registering to vote is needlessly complex and involves gobs of paperwork in some parts of the country, and many people can't afford to take time off work to vote. A Clinton administration might not have been so gung ho for scrapping net neutrality, but president clinton would have much closer ties to online services companies and the intelligence agencies, so in the end the internet would get screwed over anyway. Imagine what the hysteria over the Russians would be like with her in charge.
No.2184
>>2183Then you have a problem that needs to be dealt with.
No.2185
>>2183You can vote for anyone you want - if there's any virtual lack of democracy involved in the idea of political parties it's none other than the constituencies' sheer lack of commitment or education.
It's easier to tick off the political party's box instead of researching every individual candidate with the knowledge that those aligned with a particular party have a general agreement on basic principles. It's no easy feat balancing the burden of research on the individual voter and ensuring that enough people can moderately participate in order to actually elect someone that could be considered a representative
No.2186
>>2185Look at what the DNC did to Sanders- you can educate people all you want, but there are power structures in place which limit what can be accomplished.
No.2187
>>2186The political garbage that goes on within the parties doesn't make the election process any less democratic. The candidates choose to join these parties because they can take advantage of the funding and publicity to make a platform with.
What the DNC did was unethical, sure, but they didn't ban voters from voting for Sanders. If they wanted to vote for Sanders than they could have voted for Sanders and no one could do anything to stop them. They just chose not to because they didn't care who the candidate was as long as it was a Democrat.
The same goes for the Republican party. If the team Red had decided to ignore their constituency and choose Cruz instead of Trump, the same thing would have happened that the DC went through. Some people would have voted Trump anyway and others would just vote for Cruz just because he was the Republican candidate.
At the end of the day, a political party's internal affairs are entirely up to them, and they could make them as "unfair" as they wanted to. People can still vote for whoever they want to vote for - political parties are just a means to an end and a gamble that individual runners take in the Presidential race
No.2188
>>2167Apples to oranges. Software patents, and so-called "intellectual property" in general are constructs of the state, an imposition through the power of the state of an artificial scarcity upon a naturally abundant resource.
>>2168And that's exactly why employment is not theft. The employer provides resources - tools, designs, facilities, supply channels, etc. - that the worker cannot supply on his own. Thus, the employer is adding value to the mixture. Thus, the end product is not the fruit of the employee's labor alone. Thus, the employer is entitled to a cut of the proceeds from the sale of the product.
No.2192
>>2188How does owning capital justify making a profit? Yes, the machinery is all very important, but the owners of capital and the machinery or land itself are different entities. Further, the machinery is the crystalization of the labor of other workers who have been alienated from their product. The use of this dead labor, which merely passes on it's value, to extract surplus from living labor is simply vampiric. If someone does not personally use an item, why do they have any claim to own it? The capitalist's contribution is a slip of paper which enables him to generously allow the workers to use what is their birthright. You claim that intellectual property is artificial, but how is it less artificial than the standard of property applied to tangible items, where you can never even lay eyes on equiptment but still claim to own it and that you are entitled to work done with it? Certainly animals claim territory for themselves, but I have yet to see a wolf landlord claim land that they they themselves will never hunt on and then try to extract labor through rents.
No.2193
>>2188If the owner of a machine recieved a share of what the worker produced with it equal to the value that the machine contributed to the final product, then they wouldn't make a profit, just break even.
No.2249
>>1960why would someone use discord for anything else other than brewing soykaf?
No.2282
>>2249>Why would someone use this entire universe for anything else than brewing soykaf?Do good where you can, Deckard
