"Buytaert is pitching the idea as part of a broader push for a more open Web that reduces the dominance of a handful of platforms."
Because the handful of dominant platforms would never, ever have any influence on policy. Why would government regulators listen to a small number of well-recognized experts when they could listen to hundreds of chattering upstarts?
The idea that government regulators will protect us from "the dominant few" is very common and tragically naive. Why do people keep falling for this?
Complaints about this in the past basically amounted to the Nirvana Fallacy: it can never work good enough to completely protect us with absolute certainty, so let's do nothing instead.
I hear those places are uncivilized, have no roads or sewers, and bands of gunmen roam the streets shooting mothers who only venture out of their huts because their children are starving to death. If any tax is cut for anyone, people on Slashdot assure me this is the immediate result.
Great points. Here's a good discussion about "Why can't America have what Europe has?". It's about health care rather than college, but the realities aren't too vastly different. Also there's some honest discussion, so Trigger Warning for credulous people who believe the stories politicians tell them.
Hark! Is that another thing wrong with America that I hear?
Sure, maybe. So what though? If you're an American, then I don't hear you trying to solve anything. If you're not, then why should anyone in America spend one second caring about your opinion? Does anyone in any other country help America in any way? Are we going to lose your "valuable" support? Oh no!
Not really. People actually value college football. For lots of people, that's the only reason they care whether the college exists at all. Comparatively, almost no one cares who the college president is.
Also, college football coaches matter to the performance of college football teams. They aren't just figureheads going through the motions and collecting their giant paychecks.
So we should tone down the hate rhetoric and call off the lynch mobs? Maybe try to be one country instead of little groups at war with each other for the glory of the community organizers in charge?
Yeah, but we need to get the conversation going so we can hear the campus Bernie supporters say:
"Naw man, not us. We didn't mean us. Send your government enrorcers after some other guys! Please!? Fuck. Now I wish I'd been more of a grown-up and thought things through..."
No one says it, but if Bernie Sanders' free college plans are going anywhere, it means college and university employees will have to take drastic cuts in pay. Free college is completely unaffordable for any government budget otherwise.
Why are you bringing facts into a greed and envy discussion? It's supposed to be about how we should hate the 1% and want to rob them blind. Yet you're apologizing for these 1-percenter college presidents.
Have we finally come to the end of the Klanish hate-fest for rich people? Or are you trying to exempt the good 1-percenters while still calling for the heads of the bad 1-percenters?
Stealing is wrong regardless of whether the victims have money left over after you steal some.
But you'll find that there are gradations to wrong, this is why it's wronger to take all of what somebody has, than to take a small portion.
It's wrong because of the motive: people want free stuff. People want to spend money they didn't earn, on things they don't truly need, and instead of working for it and earning the money themselves, they want to use their neighbors' money. They elect politicians with messages of hate, appealing to their envy and greed, in order to steal that money to spend on giveaways and free stuff for them.
If it's not stealing, why do politicians sound like it is? Which politician ever said that they want someone to pay more tax to make the payer's life better? When politicians want votes, it's always they who will pay and we who will benefit. That's the language of stealing.
Stealing is wrong regardless of whether the victims have money left over after you steal some.
Secondly, how is this theft?
Taking from people by force, against their will, is stealing.
Taxing only starts to become justifiable for public services. An example is taxing property to pay for a fire department to protect property from fires. The people who pay for it benefit from it. If it didn't exist, they might voluntarily decide to establish it and pay the tax so they can get the benefits.
Taxing one person to get money for freebies and giveaways to another person is stealing. The person who pays does not benefit.
In my case I don't really have a choice of either unless I quit my job, since my employer chooses them.
If your company's health insurance provider loses everyone's data, it loses the company executives' data too. They can decide to choose a more responsible provider. You could also opt out and find a more responsible provider if your company's provider is bad. Everyone involved has choices and at least some financial interest in choosing responsibly.
... the IRS can't put anyone in prison when the IRS loses their data.
If you decide to stop doing business with them because they're criminally irresponsible with your data, they send you to prison. That's the major difference between government and private interactions: private interactions are voluntary -- if you don't like a company or a person you don't have to do business with them. Government interactions are forced -- obey your government masters or go to prison.
Private company loses your data, you stop doing business with them. IRS loses your data, fuck you.
Private company negligent with your data, private company gets sued and maybe criminally charged. IRS negligent with your data, fuck you. IRS workers keep their jobs, no one faces any consequences. Except you. Because fuck you.
It would be exceedingly poor PR for Google to come in and wreck other people's connectivity and get caught doing it.
Yeah. That's why no cable or internet provider ever messes up anyone's connectivity. Can you imagine a world where someone complains about a broadband provider? I'm sure the executives at these companies get panic attacks just thinking about the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
"Buytaert is pitching the idea as part of a broader push for a more open Web that reduces the dominance of a handful of platforms."
Because the handful of dominant platforms would never, ever have any influence on policy. Why would government regulators listen to a small number of well-recognized experts when they could listen to hundreds of chattering upstarts?
The idea that government regulators will protect us from "the dominant few" is very common and tragically naive. Why do people keep falling for this?
Complaints about this in the past basically amounted to the Nirvana Fallacy: it can never work good enough to completely protect us with absolute certainty, so let's do nothing instead.
College football coaches?
By the way, I live in a place with no estate tax.
I hear those places are uncivilized, have no roads or sewers, and bands of gunmen roam the streets shooting mothers who only venture out of their huts because their children are starving to death. If any tax is cut for anyone, people on Slashdot assure me this is the immediate result.
...s/he oversees 5000+ employees, 30,000+ students...
Hmm, 1 employee for every 6 students... I think maybe I found the cause of your spiraling university cost problem.
Great points. Here's a good discussion about "Why can't America have what Europe has?". It's about health care rather than college, but the realities aren't too vastly different. Also there's some honest discussion, so Trigger Warning for credulous people who believe the stories politicians tell them.
Hark! Is that another thing wrong with America that I hear?
Sure, maybe. So what though? If you're an American, then I don't hear you trying to solve anything. If you're not, then why should anyone in America spend one second caring about your opinion? Does anyone in any other country help America in any way? Are we going to lose your "valuable" support? Oh no!
Not really. People actually value college football. For lots of people, that's the only reason they care whether the college exists at all. Comparatively, almost no one cares who the college president is.
Also, college football coaches matter to the performance of college football teams. They aren't just figureheads going through the motions and collecting their giant paychecks.
So we should tone down the hate rhetoric and call off the lynch mobs? Maybe try to be one country instead of little groups at war with each other for the glory of the community organizers in charge?
Yeah, but we need to get the conversation going so we can hear the campus Bernie supporters say:
"Naw man, not us. We didn't mean us. Send your government enrorcers after some other guys! Please!? Fuck. Now I wish I'd been more of a grown-up and thought things through..."
No one says it, but if Bernie Sanders' free college plans are going anywhere, it means college and university employees will have to take drastic cuts in pay. Free college is completely unaffordable for any government budget otherwise.
Why are you bringing facts into a greed and envy discussion? It's supposed to be about how we should hate the 1% and want to rob them blind. Yet you're apologizing for these 1-percenter college presidents.
Have we finally come to the end of the Klanish hate-fest for rich people? Or are you trying to exempt the good 1-percenters while still calling for the heads of the bad 1-percenters?
Stealing from widows and orphans isn't necessary for civilization. There was no estate tax in 2010 and civilization continued.
If you want to steal from widows and orphans for your own greedy purposes, just say so. Don't hide behind "civilization".
In other words, you can just walk away from a company, but with the government you need to get the majority's permission.
And that's in the best-case scenario of a government that's actually accountable to the majority.
Stealing is wrong regardless of whether the victims have money left over after you steal some.
But you'll find that there are gradations to wrong, this is why it's wronger to take all of what somebody has, than to take a small portion.
It's wrong because of the motive: people want free stuff. People want to spend money they didn't earn, on things they don't truly need, and instead of working for it and earning the money themselves, they want to use their neighbors' money. They elect politicians with messages of hate, appealing to their envy and greed, in order to steal that money to spend on giveaways and free stuff for them.
If it's not stealing, why do politicians sound like it is? Which politician ever said that they want someone to pay more tax to make the payer's life better? When politicians want votes, it's always they who will pay and we who will benefit. That's the language of stealing.
Stealing is wrong regardless of whether the victims have money left over after you steal some.
Secondly, how is this theft?
Taking from people by force, against their will, is stealing.
Taxing only starts to become justifiable for public services. An example is taxing property to pay for a fire department to protect property from fires. The people who pay for it benefit from it. If it didn't exist, they might voluntarily decide to establish it and pay the tax so they can get the benefits.
Taxing one person to get money for freebies and giveaways to another person is stealing. The person who pays does not benefit.
In my case I don't really have a choice of either unless I quit my job, since my employer chooses them.
If your company's health insurance provider loses everyone's data, it loses the company executives' data too. They can decide to choose a more responsible provider. You could also opt out and find a more responsible provider if your company's provider is bad. Everyone involved has choices and at least some financial interest in choosing responsibly.
... the IRS can't put anyone in prison when the IRS loses their data.
If you decide to stop doing business with them because they're criminally irresponsible with your data, they send you to prison. That's the major difference between government and private interactions: private interactions are voluntary -- if you don't like a company or a person you don't have to do business with them. Government interactions are forced -- obey your government masters or go to prison.
I don't get how there can be so many people worth $5.4 million cheering in the audience when candidates talk about eliminating it.
Stealing is wrong. People are cheering for an end to stealing from widows and orphans.
I'd expect that means their income tax will increase to compensate for it.
No. Simply cut spending.
Which one will put you in prison?
Private company loses your data, you stop doing business with them. IRS loses your data, fuck you.
Private company negligent with your data, private company gets sued and maybe criminally charged. IRS negligent with your data, fuck you. IRS workers keep their jobs, no one faces any consequences. Except you. Because fuck you.
Let's put them in charge of our health care.
...but then again, you are probably a Trump sheep...
Did someone tell you a story you want to hear about Trump too?
(BTW: I don't support Trump, or ATT, or Google. Or Internet outrage dramas.)
It would be exceedingly poor PR for Google to come in and wreck other people's connectivity and get caught doing it.
Yeah. That's why no cable or internet provider ever messes up anyone's connectivity. Can you imagine a world where someone complains about a broadband provider? I'm sure the executives at these companies get panic attacks just thinking about the idea.
Also boycott everyone who has ever used an ATT phone or done business with ATT. Because boycotts work great.
Or you could read the article and not be a mindless tool for everyone who tells you a story you want to hear.