Slashdot Mirror
GOP Congressman Defending Privacy Vote: 'Nobody's Got To Use The Internet' (washingtonpost.com)
Wisconsin congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. defended his decision to help repeal broadband privacy rules by telling a constituent, "Nobody's got to use the Internet." An anonymous reader quotes the 73-year-old congressman:
"And the thing is that if you start regulating the Internet like a utility, if we did that right at the beginning, we would have no Internet... Internet companies have invested an awful lot of money in having almost universal service now. The fact is is that, you know, I don't think it's my job to tell you that you cannot get advertising for your information being sold. My job, I think, is to tell you that you have the opportunity to do it, and then you take it upon yourself to make that choice... That's what the law has been, and I think we ought to have more choices rather than fewer choices with the government controlling our everyday lives."
"The congressman then moved on to the next question," reports The Washington Post, but criticism of his remarks appeared on social media. One activist complained that the congressman's position was don't use the internet if you don't want your information sold to advertisers -- drawing a clarification from the congressman's office.
"Actually he said that nobody has to use the Internet. They have a choice. Big difference."
"The congressman then moved on to the next question," reports The Washington Post, but criticism of his remarks appeared on social media. One activist complained that the congressman's position was don't use the internet if you don't want your information sold to advertisers -- drawing a clarification from the congressman's office.
"Actually he said that nobody has to use the Internet. They have a choice. Big difference."
What makes you think Google, Facebook etc are so keen to sell your data
Are you an idiot? Open either site up without an ad blocker.
while AT&T etc would never consider it
Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't, they haven't but the point is THAT IT IS IRRELEVANT.
Your data is already being sold today. That horse has left the barn, someone then set the barn on fire, and that fire was thrown into another larger fire which was then doused in gasoline.
Just like Google & Facebook, the major ISPs don't sell your data but do use it to run targeted ad networks of their own
Case closed, even you admit it.
You can easily avoid Google or Facebook
EASILY meaning of course running a host of ad-blockers, turning off Javascript, and blocking all images downloads. "Easily". And such a usable web you have after you do all that! Not.
but how do you avoid your only local broadband provider,
It's called a VPN retard, and in fact THAT is easy. Vastly easier and less practical than trying to thwart the collective engines of Google/Facebook.
What are you even doing on Slashdot? It's for technical people. If you at this point are not even aware of what a VPN can do GTFO.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
> "Limited government" is really just code for "a government that cannot protect its ordinary citizens".
THAT is an authoritarian viewpoint, the idea that "limited government" is bad, that government control should *not* be limited. It may be right, it may be wrong, but either way it's the rallying cry of authoritarian regimes.
> Would it make you happy if I replaced
It would make me happy if our discussion led each of us to better understand our own beliefs and better understand the other person's viewpoint. Since you seem to say limited government is a very bad idea, would that mean you strongly support giving politicians *un*limited power, a totalitarian, autocratic, or authoritarian regime?
Which of those three styles of non-limited government would you say you support most, a totalitarian, autocratic, or authoritarian? Perhaps dictatorial?