not only have your democratically elected representatives come to believe that they are elected by you, the people, to serve the interests of the oligarchs who stuff their pockets full of money, they have convinced large portions of the electorate of this as well.
I was a bit too snarky in my first reply, you do try to put forth some points that show some independent thought. Apologies.
Addressing something that stood out to me which I quoted above from your reply:
None of that will change no matter which Party holds power.
The problem is one of having ignored basic human nature and the warnings we were given. The central government is too large, too powerful, and controls far too much of society and the economy. It has immense, staggering domestic power. Any time there is that much power concentrated, those with lust for power, wealth, and control will eventually find a way to corrupt it and own it. It's inevitable because of human nature.
The US Founders warned us multiple times in multiple ways about the dangers of a powerful central government, but people allowed themselves to be convinced that government should give them the shiny.
The US has gone from a federation of sovereign states to a ' people's democratic republic' with non-sovereign provinces, and with it the commensurate losses of liberty, opportunity, and civil rights as government involvement and control expands in every segment of society and individual lives.
Yeah because Plastic bubble wrap in a padded envelope is much more planet friendly then a cardboard box.
If they made the packaging out of some form of food or something that can be rendered into food (add water, boil, etc), or heck, if they made them from hemp, the problem would be self-solving! Make the boxes from foodstuff and the padding from hemp or the reverse, and you've got dinner and a smoke!
That way we'd only end up with fat, stoned fish in that soon-to-be-former giant 'plastic Sargasso' in the North Atlantic Gyre.
Bollocks, republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive things. The USA is a democratic republic, or more specifically a federal republic with features of a representative democracy where where elected individuals represent the citizen body in government.
So, it's a representative republic. Right, then. o_0
You certainly seem agitated and go to great lengths to show how you agree with my post.
Have a Snickers. You're get whiny when you're hungry.
If the leaders of a democracy are going to treat its citizens as mere background noise...
The US is not a democracy, full stop.
The US is a representative republic. And they *did* listen to the people, the people who elected their party and president to represent them with this internet deregulation as one of the campaign promises prior to the election. Elections have consequences, particularly for contentious executive-branch Agency/Dept./Bureau/etc administrative unilateral fiats. Same thing as with Executive Orders. What one administration can do, another can undo.
Sure stops air pollution - those airplanes do pump out a lot of garbage into the air. Check out how many tons of fuel a Trans- Atlantic takes with a passenger plane.
Also on a rather bizarre note, during the power outage TSA agents were allegedly spotted wandering around aimlessly and acting very confused. One agent reportedly attempted to detain a trash receptacle for interrogation, and another was said to have been spotted giving a 'pat down' to a support column and becoming agitated that the column would not 'spread wider please' and proceeded to attempt to have the column arrested. No details were available regarding the specific charges the column faces.
Then, turn to that non-programmer and say "All these happen because of programmers"
They will still have gobs of clueless questions that will waste even more of your time and leave them still without a clue.
This problem was addressed many years ago. It's not in English (or German, really) but the meaning still comes through.
ACHTUNG!
ALLES TURISTEN UND NONTEKNISCHEN LOOKENPEEPERS! DAS KOMPUTERMASCHINE IST NICHT FUR DER GEFINGERPOKEN UND MITTENGRABEN! ODERWISE IST EASY TO SCHNAPPEN DER SPRINGENWERK, BLOWENFUSEN UND POPPENCORKEN MIT SPITZENSPARKEN. IST NICHT FUR GEWERKEN BEI DUMMKOPFEN. DER RUBBERNECKEN SIGHTSEEREN KEEPEN DAS COTTONPICKEN HANDER IN DAS POCKETS MUSS. ZO RELAXEN UND WATSCHEN DER BLINKENLICHTEN.
Protectionism is bad, m'kay? Even when it's (and often, especially when it's) domestic
That is a political philosophy (one popular in the tech world, which counts about 5% of the polity) and debatable.
I believe far more than 5% hold that opinion, but that is not my point. Most Germans just prior to WW2 held views largely in line with the Nazis, same with Russians and Stalin. That did not make those laws right either.
When the answers to the debate are embodied in laws then the appropriate forum of debate is the legislature, not the unilateral decision to break the law.
"Lex iniusta non est lex" - "An unjust law is no law at all". When the legislature fails in it's duty to not pass unjust or unconstitutional laws and/or refuses to correct it's errors when it does, natural law is the fallback position. That's just reality. It's what happens when governments try to enforce unjust laws on a population. Alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s and the War On (some) Drugs are examples. It simply creates criminals out of otherwise relatively peaceful and law-abiding people. That never ends well.
Given that Uber's entire business model is based on breaking the law...
Given that taxicab companies' entire business model is predicated on having bought broken laws from corrupt governments to protect their broken business model, "breaking the law" in this case is a net-positive for everyone except the taxicab companies, their unions, and the government.
Protectionism is bad, m'kay? Even when it's (and often, especially when it's) domestic.
"Legal" =/= "good", "fair", or "just". Everything Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot did were "legal". Civil forfeiture is "legal" in the US. Up until the 1960s racial segregation and discrimination were "legal".
Something being "legal" or "illegal" has little to no bearing these days on whether something is good or bad.
And so, Uber must be destroyed. They rocked the boat of the established players.
Governments and labor unions will not tolerate that which they cannot control and/or that which changes the status quo. As a result, Rearden Steel...err...Uber will be destroyed as an example.
This means you can be arrested on a drug charge, and before the test comes back about whether those pills in your pocket were ibuprofen or crack, the police have sold your car and bought a new set of hats for the whole department.
It's far worse.
They don't have to arrest you or charge you with any crime. They can (and often do) stop interstate motorists and seize cash/valuables, then send the motorists on their way with no arrests, no charges against the person(s) involved.
They've created this legal fiction from whole cloth that inanimate objects break laws all on their own and can be charged with violating laws as if they were sentient, self-determining/self-willed, and aware. It would be totally laughable on it's face if it didn't result in so many innocent people being forced to go through tragedy, loss, and suffering for simply being perfectly peaceful and law-abiding people that had money that cops could seize because fuck you.
You know the old saying; "Better that ten innocent BTC owners have their assets seized by the government and liquidated by the Treasury without trial, rather than allowing even one citizen to stash away wealth in a crypto blockchain we can't touch."
When the laws are as broken as the taxi laws are sometimes you need a crook to fix things.
Well, there's you're doggone problem right there!
The crooks already 'fixed' things (the government-brand crooks)!
Besides, taxi unions and the larger unions they belong to give a metric fuck-ton of money mostly to one political party. They probably aren't very interested in butchering one of their cash-cows just to help out the baskets of deplorables in fly-over country with access to decent, clean, and comfortable transportation at a decent price. "Let them eat Yellow Cab."
I can see new standard questions being added to DUI/sobriety checkpoints along the lines of "Who is your passenger and is he paying anything for the ride? You say he's your 12-year-old son and doesn't have picture ID? He has a smartphone, are you sure he didn't use it to hire you? We'll need some proof besides your word, sir. Please pull over to the detainment area. You're alleged "son's" alleged "doctor's appointment" will have to wait."
I don't see a problem with what the news agencies are asking. Google and FB just need to start charging the news agencies for all the traffic they send their way and pay them from this revenue.
Just a simple general rule change: All sources must pay a fee to appear in search results/FB feeds, the amount equal to whatever fees, payments, taxes, levies, etc that source charges Google/FB. If they charge zero to appear in search results/FB feeds, then the fee amount is is zero to appear in search results/FB feeds (our records show we have not received your payment. please remit your check for $0.00 lol). Simple and fair.
Your own fantasies frighten you. It couldn't possibly be that there have been numerous issues with amateur hour drone pilots flying into things, into people, shuttling down airports for flying in their airspace, You need a license to drive and you have to register your car. Why are drone pilots more special than commuters?
Let's try your argument with a different piece of technology:
"Your own fantasies frighten you. It couldn't possibly be that there have been numerous issues with amateur hour script-kiddies hacking/cracking into businesses, into people, shuttling down websites with botnet DDoD attacks, You need a license to drive and you have to register your car. Why are computer owners more special than commuters?"
Huh. That's odd. Doesn't sound nearly so reasonable now. Go figure.
Hey, great! That means we just build a bunch of mini-drones each under the registration weight limit which can dock together in flight and form a huge drone weighing hundreds of pounds and capable of carrying serious payloads.
Sure it's more to do with idiots flying into people's head or planes. They SHOULD register this, and MORE. They should need to be licensed to fly them.
Safety or freedom.
Choose.
We already have plenty of laws against endangering people or property, creating a public hazard/nuisance, 'peeping Tom' laws, disturbing the peace, etc etc etc. There are another entire set of criminal laws dealing with any sort of endangerment to an aircraft. There are literally more laws than they've been able to count, and they've tried multiple times. This is akin to the early patent trolls locking up common tasks etc in patents by filing and receiving patents on nearly identical prior (usually expired) patents by adding "...with a computer."
I mean, you can already be charged with a plethora of serious federal charges with potentially decades of prison time for doing something only minimally stupid/dangerous with a drone with the laws we already have on the books.
How much 'illegaler' do you want to make it? Do we boil them in oil *before* we hang them, or after? And, where the hell does the beheading come in, before or after the flogging?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_rNnErg-oM ISIS was already using them against the Syrian army, it's not theoretical anymore. For attacks like the one in this youtube video, but also in combat operations.
I'm sure the terrorists will register their home-brew drone-bombs like they registered to fly airliners before 9/11.
This isn't about terrorism, foreign or domestic, nor about safety.
This is purely government frightened that individuals with video/camera drones will expose their wrongdoing for all to see. ^That^ right there frightens them FAR more than all the crazy fringe groups and ISIS terrorists because "...can't stop the signal, Mal."
In fact, Facebook has to be the ultimate orgasm-inducer for anyone who wants to track relationships, and that probably includes every level of government, law enforcement and otherwise. You used to have to know somebody to know who their friends are, now there's an API for that.
So much so these days that *not* having a social media history archived is a red flag to US TLAs, whether the person is foreign or domestic, inside or outside the US, and in their way of thinking warrants further/deeper surveillance.
As you create more and more laws, regulations, taxes, fees, etc etc etc ad nauseam, the more and more-intrusive monitoring, surveillance, and enforcement that will be necessary to detect lawbreaking and trace/apprehend lawbreakers. What is occurring regarding the explosive growth of ubiquitous US mass domestic surveillance is a natural consequence of allowing government to create so many laws they can't count them and allowing the central government to grow to gigantic proportions and wield enormous power over individual lives and every sector of the economy.
Human nature: It's why we can't have nice things, world peace, or powerful but benevolent central governments (no matter the -ist or -ism).
"Starbucks employed 8 percent more people in the U.S. in 2016 than it did in 2015, the year it launched the app..."
Employees per store is the only valid statistic to support their contention. Otherwise, it's factoring in new employees in new stores.
You are correct once market saturation us achieved, as there can only be so many stores per a given area. After that market saturation point is passed, further automation will result in fewer employees when the area in question has enough stores to serve the available market.
As long as more stores are being added within an area/market, the store chain *as a whole* is employing more total workers within that area/market.
Government, particularly a bloated, kleptocratic, partisan, overreaching, and authoritarian government, is not who/what you want to hand carte blanche regulatory control of the internet to.
Don't worry. Just another 7 years to go.
The Republicans and Democrats are equally as bad when it comes to protecting and increasing their own wealth, power, and control at the expense of the taxpayers both in terms of wealth and freedom. Hillary surely would not have changed much in D.C., as she is as much a D.C. 'swamp creature' as any of them, and more so than many if not most.
All that would really change if it was HRC instead of DJT in charge is the color of the kool-aid.
You mean pretty much as it's been for decades? The cherry-picked horror stories trotted out as evidence all have two things in common:
1) They were relatively few and far between.
2) They were short lived and usually ended with a lot of bad PR and stock price hits and needed no FCC or other government intervention other than normal tort actions and FTC trade laws.
Look, I don't want the internet dependent on a few monopolistic gatekeepers either, but we must work together to find a solution and not just toss it in government's lap and call it done to avoid the duty & responsibility to see it done proper. Government, particularly a bloated, kleptocratic, partisan, overreaching, and authoritarian government, is not who/what you want to hand carte blanche regulatory control of the internet to. Sorry, but I'd prefer a better resume for an internet regulatory authority than the same people who gave us the Veterans Administration, Amtrak, ACA, secret courts/laws/NSLs, mass domestic surveillance, the IRS, the (now semi-private) USPS, the EPA, DoE, and hosts of others. If you're worried about corrupt people running corporations destroying the open internet if they have control, why would you be less worried about the corrupt people running the government if they had control, seeing as government has police, SWAT teams, prisons, and guns. Lots of guns. They also have an annoying penchant for going all "pick up that can!" if given half a chance.
Handing it to a single political-appointee-run agency within such a government is madness. Citizens would have little or no voice. At least have the elected Congress write laws regarding the internet, rather than political appointees and career bureaucrats.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't just go and stab Old Glory in the dirt;...
"There has never been a problem among the affairs of men that could not be solved by the strategic application of sufficient firepower."
You just need a big enough Old Glory-gun. The Old Glory gun for reaching Mars would be the BFOGG.
Strat
not only have your democratically elected representatives come to believe that they are elected by you, the people, to serve the interests of the oligarchs who stuff their pockets full of money, they have convinced large portions of the electorate of this as well.
I was a bit too snarky in my first reply, you do try to put forth some points that show some independent thought. Apologies.
Addressing something that stood out to me which I quoted above from your reply:
None of that will change no matter which Party holds power.
The problem is one of having ignored basic human nature and the warnings we were given. The central government is too large, too powerful, and controls far too much of society and the economy. It has immense, staggering domestic power. Any time there is that much power concentrated, those with lust for power, wealth, and control will eventually find a way to corrupt it and own it. It's inevitable because of human nature.
The US Founders warned us multiple times in multiple ways about the dangers of a powerful central government, but people allowed themselves to be convinced that government should give them the shiny.
The US has gone from a federation of sovereign states to a ' people's democratic republic' with non-sovereign provinces, and with it the commensurate losses of liberty, opportunity, and civil rights as government involvement and control expands in every segment of society and individual lives.
Strat
Yeah because Plastic bubble wrap in a padded envelope is much more planet friendly then a cardboard box.
If they made the packaging out of some form of food or something that can be rendered into food (add water, boil, etc), or heck, if they made them from hemp, the problem would be self-solving! Make the boxes from foodstuff and the padding from hemp or the reverse, and you've got dinner and a smoke!
That way we'd only end up with fat, stoned fish in that soon-to-be-former giant 'plastic Sargasso' in the North Atlantic Gyre.
Strat
You're get whiny when you're hungry.
Gah! You get, not you're.
So, it's a representative republic. Right, then. o_0
You certainly seem agitated and go to great lengths to show how you agree with my post.
Have a Snickers. You're get whiny when you're hungry.
https://youtu.be/gtjr8LrTAJE
Strat
If the leaders of a democracy are going to treat its citizens as mere background noise...
The US is not a democracy, full stop.
The US is a representative republic. And they *did* listen to the people, the people who elected their party and president to represent them with this internet deregulation as one of the campaign promises prior to the election. Elections have consequences, particularly for contentious executive-branch Agency/Dept./Bureau/etc administrative unilateral fiats. Same thing as with Executive Orders. What one administration can do, another can undo.
Strat
Sure stops air pollution - those airplanes do pump out a lot of garbage into the air.
Check out how many tons of fuel a Trans- Atlantic takes with a passenger plane.
Also on a rather bizarre note, during the power outage TSA agents were allegedly spotted wandering around aimlessly and acting very confused. One agent reportedly attempted to detain a trash receptacle for interrogation, and another was said to have been spotted giving a 'pat down' to a support column and becoming agitated that the column would not 'spread wider please' and proceeded to attempt to have the column arrested. No details were available regarding the specific charges the column faces.
Strat
Fire up a computer
Click on a program, or a game
Then, turn to that non-programmer and say "All these happen because of programmers"
They will still have gobs of clueless questions that will waste even more of your time and leave them still without a clue.
This problem was addressed many years ago. It's not in English (or German, really) but the meaning still comes through.
ACHTUNG!
ALLES TURISTEN UND NONTEKNISCHEN LOOKENPEEPERS!
DAS KOMPUTERMASCHINE IST NICHT FUR DER GEFINGERPOKEN UND MITTENGRABEN!
ODERWISE IST EASY TO SCHNAPPEN DER SPRINGENWERK, BLOWENFUSEN UND POPPENCORKEN MIT SPITZENSPARKEN.
IST NICHT FUR GEWERKEN BEI DUMMKOPFEN. DER RUBBERNECKEN SIGHTSEEREN KEEPEN DAS COTTONPICKEN HANDER IN DAS POCKETS MUSS.
ZO RELAXEN UND WATSCHEN DER BLINKENLICHTEN.
HTH
HAND :)
Strat
I believe far more than 5% hold that opinion, but that is not my point. Most Germans just prior to WW2 held views largely in line with the Nazis, same with Russians and Stalin. That did not make those laws right either.
When the answers to the debate are embodied in laws then the appropriate forum of debate is the legislature, not the unilateral decision to break the law.
"Lex iniusta non est lex" - "An unjust law is no law at all". When the legislature fails in it's duty to not pass unjust or unconstitutional laws and/or refuses to correct it's errors when it does, natural law is the fallback position. That's just reality. It's what happens when governments try to enforce unjust laws on a population. Alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s and the War On (some) Drugs are examples. It simply creates criminals out of otherwise relatively peaceful and law-abiding people. That never ends well.
Strat
Given that Uber's entire business model is based on breaking the law...
Given that taxicab companies' entire business model is predicated on having bought broken laws from corrupt governments to protect their broken business model, "breaking the law" in this case is a net-positive for everyone except the taxicab companies, their unions, and the government.
Protectionism is bad, m'kay? Even when it's (and often, especially when it's) domestic.
"Legal" =/= "good", "fair", or "just". Everything Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot did were "legal". Civil forfeiture is "legal" in the US. Up until the 1960s racial segregation and discrimination were "legal".
Something being "legal" or "illegal" has little to no bearing these days on whether something is good or bad.
Strat
And so, Uber must be destroyed. They rocked the boat of the established players.
Governments and labor unions will not tolerate that which they cannot control and/or that which changes the status quo. As a result, Rearden Steel...err...Uber will be destroyed as an example.
Strat
This means you can be arrested on a drug charge, and before the test comes back about whether those pills in your pocket were ibuprofen or crack, the police have sold your car and bought a new set of hats for the whole department.
It's far worse.
They don't have to arrest you or charge you with any crime. They can (and often do) stop interstate motorists and seize cash/valuables, then send the motorists on their way with no arrests, no charges against the person(s) involved.
They've created this legal fiction from whole cloth that inanimate objects break laws all on their own and can be charged with violating laws as if they were sentient, self-determining/self-willed, and aware. It would be totally laughable on it's face if it didn't result in so many innocent people being forced to go through tragedy, loss, and suffering for simply being perfectly peaceful and law-abiding people that had money that cops could seize because fuck you.
Strat
Indeed - bitcoin delayed is bitcoin denied
You know the old saying; "Better that ten innocent BTC owners have their assets seized by the government and liquidated by the Treasury without trial, rather than allowing even one citizen to stash away wealth in a crypto blockchain we can't touch."
Strat
When the laws are as broken as the taxi laws are sometimes you need a crook to fix things.
Well, there's you're doggone problem right there!
The crooks already 'fixed' things (the government-brand crooks)!
Besides, taxi unions and the larger unions they belong to give a metric fuck-ton of money mostly to one political party. They probably aren't very interested in butchering one of their cash-cows just to help out the baskets of deplorables in fly-over country with access to decent, clean, and comfortable transportation at a decent price. "Let them eat Yellow Cab."
I can see new standard questions being added to DUI/sobriety checkpoints along the lines of "Who is your passenger and is he paying anything for the ride? You say he's your 12-year-old son and doesn't have picture ID? He has a smartphone, are you sure he didn't use it to hire you? We'll need some proof besides your word, sir. Please pull over to the detainment area. You're alleged "son's" alleged "doctor's appointment" will have to wait."
Strat
I don't see a problem with what the news agencies are asking. Google and FB just need to start charging the news agencies for all the traffic they send their way and pay them from this revenue.
Just a simple general rule change: All sources must pay a fee to appear in search results/FB feeds, the amount equal to whatever fees, payments, taxes, levies, etc that source charges Google/FB. If they charge zero to appear in search results/FB feeds, then the fee amount is is zero to appear in search results/FB feeds (our records show we have not received your payment. please remit your check for $0.00 lol). Simple and fair.
Strat
Your own fantasies frighten you. It couldn't possibly be that there have been numerous issues with amateur hour drone pilots flying into things, into people, shuttling down airports for flying in their airspace, You need a license to drive and you have to register your car. Why are drone pilots more special than commuters?
Let's try your argument with a different piece of technology:
"Your own fantasies frighten you. It couldn't possibly be that there have been numerous issues with amateur hour script-kiddies hacking/cracking into businesses, into people, shuttling down websites with botnet DDoD attacks, You need a license to drive and you have to register your car. Why are computer owners more special than commuters?"
Huh. That's odd. Doesn't sound nearly so reasonable now. Go figure.
Strat
Not under the current rules if it is under 55 pounds in weight, which I'm guessing it is.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/gettin... [faa.gov]
Hey, great! That means we just build a bunch of mini-drones each under the registration weight limit which can dock together in flight and form a huge drone weighing hundreds of pounds and capable of carrying serious payloads.
Strat
Sure it's more to do with idiots flying into people's head or planes. They SHOULD register this, and MORE. They should need to be licensed to fly them.
Safety or freedom.
Choose.
We already have plenty of laws against endangering people or property, creating a public hazard/nuisance, 'peeping Tom' laws, disturbing the peace, etc etc etc. There are another entire set of criminal laws dealing with any sort of endangerment to an aircraft. There are literally more laws than they've been able to count, and they've tried multiple times. This is akin to the early patent trolls locking up common tasks etc in patents by filing and receiving patents on nearly identical prior (usually expired) patents by adding "...with a computer."
I mean, you can already be charged with a plethora of serious federal charges with potentially decades of prison time for doing something only minimally stupid/dangerous with a drone with the laws we already have on the books.
How much 'illegaler' do you want to make it? Do we boil them in oil *before* we hang them, or after? And, where the hell does the beheading come in, before or after the flogging?
Should I submit a Slashdot poll?
Strat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_rNnErg-oM
ISIS was already using them against the Syrian army, it's not theoretical anymore. For attacks like the one in this youtube video, but also in combat operations.
I'm sure the terrorists will register their home-brew drone-bombs like they registered to fly airliners before 9/11.
This isn't about terrorism, foreign or domestic, nor about safety.
This is purely government frightened that individuals with video/camera drones will expose their wrongdoing for all to see. ^That^ right there frightens them FAR more than all the crazy fringe groups and ISIS terrorists because "...can't stop the signal, Mal."
Strat
...Enforcing that.
Make the "drone cops" wear propeller-beanies.
Strat
>So the NSA uses Facebook to spy
In fact, Facebook has to be the ultimate orgasm-inducer for anyone who wants to track relationships, and that probably includes every level of government, law enforcement and otherwise. You used to have to know somebody to know who their friends are, now there's an API for that.
So much so these days that *not* having a social media history archived is a red flag to US TLAs, whether the person is foreign or domestic, inside or outside the US, and in their way of thinking warrants further/deeper surveillance.
As you create more and more laws, regulations, taxes, fees, etc etc etc ad nauseam, the more and more-intrusive monitoring, surveillance, and enforcement that will be necessary to detect lawbreaking and trace/apprehend lawbreakers. What is occurring regarding the explosive growth of ubiquitous US mass domestic surveillance is a natural consequence of allowing government to create so many laws they can't count them and allowing the central government to grow to gigantic proportions and wield enormous power over individual lives and every sector of the economy.
Human nature: It's why we can't have nice things, world peace, or powerful but benevolent central governments (no matter the -ist or -ism).
Strat
...Do people have a problem with systemd or something?
[ducks]
Strat
"Starbucks employed 8 percent more people in the U.S. in 2016 than it did in 2015, the year it launched the app..."
Employees per store is the only valid statistic to support their contention. Otherwise, it's factoring in new employees in new stores.
You are correct once market saturation us achieved, as there can only be so many stores per a given area. After that market saturation point is passed, further automation will result in fewer employees when the area in question has enough stores to serve the available market.
As long as more stores are being added within an area/market, the store chain *as a whole* is employing more total workers within that area/market.
Strat
The Republicans and Democrats are equally as bad when it comes to protecting and increasing their own wealth, power, and control at the expense of the taxpayers both in terms of wealth and freedom. Hillary surely would not have changed much in D.C., as she is as much a D.C. 'swamp creature' as any of them, and more so than many if not most.
All that would really change if it was HRC instead of DJT in charge is the color of the kool-aid.
Strat
The alternative is to have no one regulate it.
You mean pretty much as it's been for decades? The cherry-picked horror stories trotted out as evidence all have two things in common:
1) They were relatively few and far between.
2) They were short lived and usually ended with a lot of bad PR and stock price hits and needed no FCC or other government intervention other than normal tort actions and FTC trade laws.
Look, I don't want the internet dependent on a few monopolistic gatekeepers either, but we must work together to find a solution and not just toss it in government's lap and call it done to avoid the duty & responsibility to see it done proper. Government, particularly a bloated, kleptocratic, partisan, overreaching, and authoritarian government, is not who/what you want to hand carte blanche regulatory control of the internet to. Sorry, but I'd prefer a better resume for an internet regulatory authority than the same people who gave us the Veterans Administration, Amtrak, ACA, secret courts/laws/NSLs, mass domestic surveillance, the IRS, the (now semi-private) USPS, the EPA, DoE, and hosts of others. If you're worried about corrupt people running corporations destroying the open internet if they have control, why would you be less worried about the corrupt people running the government if they had control, seeing as government has police, SWAT teams, prisons, and guns. Lots of guns. They also have an annoying penchant for going all "pick up that can!" if given half a chance.
Handing it to a single political-appointee-run agency within such a government is madness. Citizens would have little or no voice. At least have the elected Congress write laws regarding the internet, rather than political appointees and career bureaucrats.
Strat