Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Liberal Logic: Let's nationalize Google, Amazon and Facebook, because they're too valuable to leave in the hands of the people who created them and should be handed over to the people who spend $850 million on websites that don't work   (salon.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

6475 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Jul 2014 at 8:07 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



280 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-07-14 02:11:38 AM  
The NSA knows it can't compete with them on the surveillance front, so it's just going to buy them out instead.
 
2014-07-14 02:35:37 AM  
Apparently, Salon is channeling Karl Marx more than usual.
 
2014-07-14 04:33:04 AM  
I think the internet should, itself, be classified as a public utility.  But that doesn't mean it should be nationalized since, as we all know, private companies can own public utilities (electric companies, water utilities, trash disposal, they are often owned by private companies).  There are just more rules involved to defend the "public" from private abuse.

This would be especially useful in the case of telcom companies as a way to strengthen net neutrality rules.

But that's just me.  I do not speak for anyone but myself.
 
2014-07-14 05:57:21 AM  
subby once again confuses some random crackpot on Salon with the liberals that don't live in his head.
 
2014-07-14 07:39:11 AM  
I support this and all far left guys, if only to show Americans what a real far left position is, so we can move the conversation back towards the middle.
 
2014-07-14 07:51:21 AM  
This is the first I've heard of this and I've been at the meetings.
 
2014-07-14 07:56:55 AM  

EvilEgg: I support this and all far left guys, if only to show Americans what a real far left position is, so we can move the conversation back towards the middle.


Bernie Sanders for president: you wanna see what an actual Socialist would do?
 
2014-07-14 08:00:34 AM  
If anything will turn Zuckerberg into a conservative it would be this unlikely scenario.
 
2014-07-14 08:02:32 AM  
Fark.gov....echo chamber....echo....echo
 
2014-07-14 08:04:40 AM  
Knowing that this article is troll bait, I'll still bite:

It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly that was going to take over the world, and people were worried about Borders and Barnes and Noble killing all the little bookstores while Blockbuster was eliminating the mom and pop video stores. Now, two of those companies are gone and Microsoft isn't the dominate player it was. Today it's a Google/Amazon world. Tomorrow it will be somebody else.

However, broadband should be regulated like other public utilities. They are all the keys to our economy.
 
hej
2014-07-14 08:10:19 AM  
They didn't build that.
 
2014-07-14 08:10:40 AM  

Chris Ween: If anything will turn Zuckerberg into a conservative it would be this unlikely scenario.


You think the guy who wants to abolish public schools and replace them with facebook is a liberal?
 
2014-07-14 08:11:15 AM  
WTF?

Is this "Liberal Logic" something Republicans do to help them sleep at night?
 
2014-07-14 08:11:39 AM  
B-b-buh-but it's all BUSH's FAULT!!!!
 
2014-07-14 08:12:00 AM  

themindiswatching: subby once again confuses some random crackpot on Salon with the liberals that don't live in his head.


QFT.
 
2014-07-14 08:12:40 AM  
Sometimes I want to shake people and yell, "WHY ARE YOU BEING THE STRAW MAN PEOPLE ARGUE AGAINST?"
 
2014-07-14 08:15:33 AM  

Thats_right_ALL_the_tea: Sometimes I want to shake people and yell, "WHY ARE YOU BEING THE STRAW MAN PEOPLE ARGUE AGAINST?"


Ad revenue. This isn't honest work.
 
2014-07-14 08:17:16 AM  
It's part of King Obama's plan.  He's already nationalized healthcare, sissified the military, and taxed us beyond our means.  Why not start nationalizing private enterprise?  It's the next logical step.
 
2014-07-14 08:17:54 AM  

damageddude: It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly


Nobody (that was anybody) wanted Microsoft broken up or owned by the government. People were just saying that they needed more oversight and forced to stop their arguably illegal bundling of products.
 
2014-07-14 08:22:49 AM  

DubyaHater: It's part of King Obama's plan.  He's already nationalized healthcare, sissified the military, and taxed us beyond our means.  Why not start nationalizing private enterprise?  It's the next logical step.


That's Emperor Obama... show some respect heathen!!!
 
2014-07-14 08:23:30 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: This is the first I've heard of this and I've been at the meetings.


The thing is that at the meetings only stuff on the docket gets discussed.

You need to go to the meeting at Applebee's AFTER the meetings where they discuss what's going to be on the docket for next week.  That's when they put together the list and decide how it's going to play out.

They've got a deal where they'll honor the $.50 wings and $1 drafts deal they do on Tuesday night.
 
2014-07-14 08:24:25 AM  

enry: EvilEgg: I support this and all far left guys, if only to show Americans what a real far left position is, so we can move the conversation back towards the middle.

Bernie Sanders for president: you wanna see what an actual Socialist would do?


Yes actually
 
2014-07-14 08:24:38 AM  
Benghazi!
 
2014-07-14 08:25:10 AM  
Like all private companies, Google's, Amazon's & Facebook's websites have worked 100% perfectly 100% of the time right from the very instant they first launched.
 
2014-07-14 08:25:28 AM  

meat0918: Is this "Liberal Logic" something Republicans do to help them sleep at night  get it up?


Conservative Viagra.
 
2014-07-14 08:25:41 AM  

Skarekrough: I_Am_Weasel: This is the first I've heard of this and I've been at the meetings.

The thing is that at the meetings only stuff on the docket gets discussed.

You need to go to the meeting at Applebee's AFTER the meetings where they discuss what's going to be on the docket for next week.  That's when they put together the list and decide how it's going to play out.

They've got a deal where they'll honor the $.50 wings and $1 drafts deal they do on Tuesday night.


Which Applebees? The one near the highway or the one just off 2nd Street?
 
2014-07-14 08:25:44 AM  
Publicly funded technology built Big Tech

Ok I'll go along with this much. American DOD spending built most of the internet's underlying technologies. Licensing fees should be paid.

Also then we would have to let go of controlling other countries' DNS. Which is fine because we don't need it. We're just trading away our own investment in return for getting to play with the rest of the world's internets. We've paid to design the biggest information thing ever. Why are we not making money on this?
 
2014-07-14 08:33:33 AM  

slayer199: Salon is channeling Karl Marx more than usual.


All they need to add is "nationalize the white farms" and they can channel Robert Mugabe too.
 
2014-07-14 08:34:33 AM  
Nationalize ALL the THINGS!
 
MFK
2014-07-14 08:35:17 AM  

damageddude: Knowing that this article is troll bait, I'll still bite:

It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly that was going to take over the world, and people were worried about Borders and Barnes and Noble killing all the little bookstores while Blockbuster was eliminating the mom and pop video stores. Now, two of those companies are gone and Microsoft isn't the dominate player it was. Today it's a Google/Amazon world. Tomorrow it will be somebody else.

However, broadband should be regulated like other public utilities. They are all the keys to our economy.


well... Microsoft still wholly dominates the PC market, Barnes & Noble and Borders actually DID kill off little bookstores and Blockbuster really did eliminate all the mom and pop video stores long before the end of widespread use of DVDs.
 
2014-07-14 08:39:28 AM  

dookdookdook: The NSA knows it can't compete with them on the surveillance front, so it's just going to buy them out instead.


Actually, if they were nationalized, the NSA could not use them as a platform for spying.  The reason they can be used is their third party status. . .governed by wire tap laws, not the 4th Amendment.
 
2014-07-14 08:41:32 AM  

mistrmind: B-b-buh-but it's all BUSH's FAULT!!!!



Dude, Al Gore invented the Internets.
How else was he going to spread his Global Warming cult?
 
2014-07-14 08:41:34 AM  
As one of the Liberal Illuminati, I have been chosen to change the Google logo..
stuffpoint.com
 
2014-07-14 08:42:37 AM  
The central banks must love this idea. Just think of all the cash we will need to borrow to keep them propped up.
 
2014-07-14 08:42:49 AM  
Oh, if any crackpot can speak for all, then hell, Conservatives think the White Race is superior and that blacks should be put back into slavery.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-07-14 08:43:28 AM  
The author doesn't seem to realize that nationalizing something and regulating it as a public utility are different things.
 
2014-07-14 08:43:57 AM  
Conservative logic: No, I don't actually understand how facts, rhetoric, or words work, but I don't need to because Obummer is the WORST President in the USA history and global warming is a hox and Obamacare is socialism and fascism taking over this country like Rush and Reagan warned us it would back in 1984 and why do you keep asking me if this is a runon sentence.
 
2014-07-14 08:44:13 AM  
Let them. Only liberal welfare queens siphoning away at the government teet use the Facebook anyway. Conservative Americans are too busy working to make sure there is food on the shelves so you namby pamby art school dropouts can dash through the aisles on your Rascals, zip past the real food, and buy your Little Debbies and Chocotacos with your EBT cards.
 
2014-07-14 08:45:07 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Oh, if any crackpot can speak for all, then hell, Conservatives think the White Race is superior and that blacks should be put back into slavery.


Isn't that what their latest spokes-model out in Nevada said?
 
2014-07-14 08:45:51 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Chris Ween: If anything will turn Zuckerberg into a conservative it would be this unlikely scenario.

You think the guy who wants to abolish public schools and replace them with facebook is a liberal?


You actually think he means anything he says?
 
2014-07-14 08:46:02 AM  

MFK: Barnes & Noble and Borders actually DID kill off little bookstores


Honestly, all they did was kill the bookstores that wouldn't have survived the market anyways (think big box stores and Amazon).  I know it is different in small towns, but there are still a ton of bookstores in metro areas.  They just learned that they had to change their target audience and specialize.
 
2014-07-14 08:48:19 AM  
I don't agree with it but I could see an argument for why google could be utility like but how the fark is amazon? just because the editorialist uses it to get specialty foods and electronics?
 
2014-07-14 08:48:21 AM  
That guy sure took care of that strawman he set up in the first place!
 
2014-07-14 08:49:39 AM  

damageddude: Knowing that this article is troll bait, I'll still bite:

It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly that was going to take over the world, and people were worried about Borders and Barnes and Noble killing all the little bookstores while Blockbuster was eliminating the mom and pop video stores. Now, two of those companies are gone and Microsoft isn't the dominate player it was. Today it's a Google/Amazon world. Tomorrow it will be somebody else.

However, broadband should be regulated like other public utilities. They are all the keys to our economy.


Yep.
 
2014-07-14 08:51:38 AM  
Let's nationalize subby's mom.
 
2014-07-14 08:54:01 AM  
Hey, right wingers:

This is what a crazy nutso left winger sounds like.  You might notice how few of us "evil partisan librul sheep" are agreeing.
 
2014-07-14 08:57:25 AM  
Conservative Logic: _________________.

The Complete, Unabridged Edition
 
2014-07-14 08:58:07 AM  

Ambivalence: I think the internet should, itself, be classified as a public utility.  But that doesn't mean it should be nationalized since, as we all know, private companies can own public utilities (electric companies, water utilities, trash disposal, they are often owned by private companies).  There are just more rules involved to defend the "public" from private abuse.

This would be especially useful in the case of telcom companies as a way to strengthen net neutrality rules.

But that's just me.  I do not speak for anyone but myself.


I was going to say:   The author is an idiot, but the idea of telecoms as public utilities has done wonders for my hometown.   For $35/month, you get 20/20 fiberoptic to the house.   And everything - tech support, call center, etc - is local.  If I have a problem, I call a local number, talk to people I see at the ballpark on a regular basis, and they almost always send someone out in less than 24 hours.

But the telecoms got scared shiatless, and like in several other states they bribed the NC General Assembly into making it virtually impossible for other cities in North Carolina to do the same.  Two dozen cities were watching how Greenlight take off, and started exploring their own municipal bond projects.  The General Assembly even had the audacity to call it the "Level Playing Field Act".

And now that they've got their effective monopolies, Slime-Warner and Comcast have done jack shiat to improve their existing cable infrastructure.  Why should TWC care?  The only place they've had to lower their rates due to real competition is in Wilson County.
 
2014-07-14 08:58:50 AM  
Like many other libs in this thread, I'd literally never once heard anyone argue for nationalization of these companies.

So while the person who made this silly argument may be a "liberal", that doesn't make this silly argument "liberal logic".
 
2014-07-14 08:58:54 AM  
No no, this makes perfect sense. It's all part of Chairman Obamao's Great Socialist Plot, because if regulating something like a public utility is tantamount to nationalizing all businesses that use that public utility, then all businesses are, in fact, nationalized. Just as Alinsky intended.
 
2014-07-14 08:59:44 AM  

HeartBurnKid: Hey, right wingers:

This is what a crazy nutso left winger sounds like.  You might notice how few of us "evil partisan librul sheep" are agreeing.



Speak for yourself, but it makes perfect sense to treat a lot of these companies like common carriers as their influence and necessity become increasingly ingrained.  The only "nut" here is the submitter, who doesn't understand the difference between public utilities and nationalization.
 
2014-07-14 09:01:48 AM  

DarnoKonrad: HeartBurnKid: Hey, right wingers:

This is what a crazy nutso left winger sounds like.  You might notice how few of us "evil partisan librul sheep" are agreeing.


Speak for yourself, but it makes perfect sense to treat a lot of these companies like common carriers as their influence and necessity become increasingly ingrained.  The only "nut" here is the submitter, who doesn't understand the difference between public utilities and nationalization.


I just don't see treating software makers or retailers as a utility.  How does that even begin to work?

ISPs, yes, because frankly, they meet all the hallmarks of a utility.  But the rest of it?
 
2014-07-14 09:04:24 AM  
Salon, the counter point to NRO.
 
2014-07-14 09:08:58 AM  
I think we can all agree that there was nothing short of fire that could have saved MySpace.
 
2014-07-14 09:09:48 AM  
What the hell is this article? I'm one of those super-libby libs, and if some farktard started with this shiat in my presence I'd whack him upside the head for stoopid. Is this just an elaborate troll/strawman by the secret-conservative Salon?

Author makes sense about how broadband internet ought to be a public utility, but that is a settled matter among non-idiots last I checked. How he makes the stretch from "Google uses the internet" to "Nationalization of private companies because children" is beyond me.

/I'm a hoar for troll bait, what can I say
 
2014-07-14 09:10:36 AM  
meh, they already are outsourced information gatherers for the secret services.

They would be less effective if they were privatised, it would be too obvious...
 
2014-07-14 09:12:13 AM  

HeartBurnKid: DarnoKonrad: HeartBurnKid: Hey, right wingers:

This is what a crazy nutso left winger sounds like.  You might notice how few of us "evil partisan librul sheep" are agreeing.


Speak for yourself, but it makes perfect sense to treat a lot of these companies like common carriers as their influence and necessity become increasingly ingrained.  The only "nut" here is the submitter, who doesn't understand the difference between public utilities and nationalization.

I just don't see treating software makers or retailers as a utility.  How does that even begin to work?

ISPs, yes, because frankly, they meet all the hallmarks of a utility.  But the rest of it?


These entities manage a lot of data.  It only makes sense to say  they can't discriminate with that data nor collude to leverage and gouge consumers.  The same kinds of rules that pipelines, roads, postage, and telecommunication companies operate under.

Google, Amazon, and Apple have branched out far beyond retail or software.   In my life at least, they *are* my phone service (google voice), television service (amazon prime, youtube), and communication provider (email.)

These are the kinds of niches that were once only occupied by common carriers.
 
2014-07-14 09:12:16 AM  
Broadband access should be a public utility.

Amazon and Google? This libtard says NO .
 
2014-07-14 09:15:38 AM  
That's some epic Poe's Law stuff. Even for Salon, I had to click to see if it was satire.
 
2014-07-14 09:16:00 AM  

MindStalker: Nobody (that was anybody) wanted Microsoft broken up or owned by the government. People were just saying that they needed more oversight and forced to stop their arguably illegal bundling of products.


I have to wonder how amusing it would be today if someone tried suing a company for including a web browser with its operating system for free. What a difference a decade makes.
 
2014-07-14 09:16:01 AM  
Broadband as a public utility, like electricity and water and gas? Definitely. Our economy is so reliant on it now that it makes sense to make it a public utility.

But nationalizing Amazon and Google seems stupid.
 
2014-07-14 09:19:54 AM  

Trillian Astra: Broadband as a public utility, like electricity and water and gas? Definitely. Our economy is so reliant on it now that it makes sense to make it a public utility.

But nationalizing Amazon and Google seems stupid.


public utilities are not nationalized.  The question is better understood this way:  is an email address as important as  a phone number these days?  I'd say without a doubt -- maybe more so.   Yet the rules that govern access, retention, and privacy of a phone line don't apply to email.   That's all this really means.    Nationalization, is fark-tarded strawman by numb nutted subby.
 
2014-07-14 09:22:25 AM  

MithrandirBooga: amusing it would be today if someone tried suing a company for including a web browser with its operating system for free

In the Internet's early days of course Microsoft attempted to leverage its overwhelming market position to 'extend' web standards in proprietary ways they owned. It seems silly now because they failed. Truly market competitive OSes didn't exist yet.
 
2014-07-14 09:22:32 AM  
The internet is infrastructure and should be treated like a utility. 
The businesses on the internet are a different matter. You can't just go about claiming them as public property because they look profitable. Government doesn't know what to do with things that are profitable.

This is a FAIL plan on all counts.

img.fark.net
 
2014-07-14 09:26:58 AM  

DarnoKonrad: public utilities are not nationalized.


Yes, thank you, I am aware of that. Which is why I said it should be like electricity and water.
 
2014-07-14 09:29:52 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Ambivalence: I think the internet should, itself, be classified as a public utility.  But that doesn't mean it should be nationalized since, as we all know, private companies can own public utilities (electric companies, water utilities, trash disposal, they are often owned by private companies).  There are just more rules involved to defend the "public" from private abuse.

This would be especially useful in the case of telcom companies as a way to strengthen net neutrality rules.

But that's just me.  I do not speak for anyone but myself.

I was going to say:   The author is an idiot, but the idea of telecoms as public utilities has done wonders for my hometown.   For $35/month, you get 20/20 fiberoptic to the house.   And everything - tech support, call center, etc - is local.  If I have a problem, I call a local number, talk to people I see at the ballpark on a regular basis, and they almost always send someone out in less than 24 hours.

But the telecoms got scared shiatless, and like in several other states they bribed the NC General Assembly into making it virtually impossible for other cities in North Carolina to do the same.  Two dozen cities were watching how Greenlight take off, and started exploring their own municipal bond projects.  The General Assembly even had the audacity to call it the "Level Playing Field Act".

And now that they've got their effective monopolies, Slime-Warner and Comcast have done jack shiat to improve their existing cable infrastructure.  Why should TWC care?  The only place they've had to lower their rates due to real competition is in Wilson County.


Yeah, but then you have to live in Chapel Hill, and, as well all know, Carolina sucks.

Just sayin'.
 
2014-07-14 09:30:11 AM  
Nobody born after the baby boomers will agree with anything this guy said.  I just hate that he left no way to reply to his uninformed argument.  Typical, we'll just take what we want, if we can't take, we control it and run it into the ground.  It's time to wake up and expose these people for the spoiled brats they are.  They used their numbers to rob their parents, and now they steal the future to make their life easy.  Talk about "tyranny of the majority."  And this person is a liberal following classic liberal logic.  Liberals want the expansion of government and government control.  Modern young people think they are liberal because they support gay marriage and marijuana legalization.  This actually removes government control and is classically conservative.  Now that your brain is all twisted up-- most people are socially "liberal" and fiscally conservative.  Or by classic definition conservative.  They changed the textbooks to tell everyone they were liberal.  Read one from before 1970.  And today's republicans are not conservative, they are liberal by classic definition.  They decided to change the definition to divide the voters in hopes of winning elections.  Personally, I think government should be limited to Military, emergency services, and garbage pick-up.
 
2014-07-14 09:30:29 AM  
The same argument could be adapted to say that all brick and mortar stores should be nationalized because the roads that people use to get there were funded by the government.
 
2014-07-14 09:31:09 AM  
Tell you what. You give us back healthcare and we'll give you facebook.
 
2014-07-14 09:32:32 AM  

MFK: well... Microsoft still wholly dominates the PC market, Barnes & Noble and Borders actually DID kill off little bookstores and Blockbuster really did eliminate all the mom and pop video stores long before the end of widespread use of DVDs.


My point was that today's near monopoly could be tomorrow's minor player, or not even exist.
 
2014-07-14 09:32:42 AM  

ragekage: UNC_Samurai: Ambivalence: I think the internet should, itself, be classified as a public utility.  But that doesn't mean it should be nationalized since, as we all know, private companies can own public utilities (electric companies, water utilities, trash disposal, they are often owned by private companies).  There are just more rules involved to defend the "public" from private abuse.

This would be especially useful in the case of telcom companies as a way to strengthen net neutrality rules.

But that's just me.  I do not speak for anyone but myself.

I was going to say:   The author is an idiot, but the idea of telecoms as public utilities has done wonders for my hometown.   For $35/month, you get 20/20 fiberoptic to the house.   And everything - tech support, call center, etc - is local.  If I have a problem, I call a local number, talk to people I see at the ballpark on a regular basis, and they almost always send someone out in less than 24 hours.

But the telecoms got scared shiatless, and like in several other states they bribed the NC General Assembly into making it virtually impossible for other cities in North Carolina to do the same.  Two dozen cities were watching how Greenlight take off, and started exploring their own municipal bond projects.  The General Assembly even had the audacity to call it the "Level Playing Field Act".

And now that they've got their effective monopolies, Slime-Warner and Comcast have done jack shiat to improve their existing cable infrastructure.  Why should TWC care?  The only place they've had to lower their rates due to real competition is in Wilson County.

Yeah, but then you have to live in Chapel Hill, and, as well all know, Carolina sucks.

Just sayin'.


Um, how did Wilson become Chapel Hill?
 
2014-07-14 09:33:42 AM  
Designating the internet as a public utility is different from nationalizing Google or Amazon. The former is needed. The latter is farking retarded.
 
2014-07-14 09:34:12 AM  

CarnySaur: Let's nationalize subby's mom.


I believe she does qualify as a public utility at this point.
 
2014-07-14 09:34:27 AM  
Hey, can we keep this bullshiat in the Politics tab please? Thanks.
 
2014-07-14 09:34:59 AM  

docrhody: blah blah blah.


You might want to up your meds.
 
2014-07-14 09:36:25 AM  
I agree with badhatharry, but they figure they are getting cheated.  Throw in AOL, nobody is using it anyway.
 
2014-07-14 09:37:27 AM  

docrhody: Personally, I think government should be limited to Military, emergency services, and garbage pick-up.


Yeah fark poor people and screw public safety am I right?
 
2014-07-14 09:39:07 AM  
I agree with the poster that suggests that the internets should be regulated as a public utility.  It's not necessary to nationalize companies that rule the internet, simply regulate them in a reasonable way.

/US healthcare on the other hand...
 
2014-07-14 09:39:09 AM  
And this is a surprise how?

Read Karl Marx, the liberal's version of Thomas Jefferson, if you really want to know what they think.
 
2014-07-14 09:39:12 AM  
Ha!  Just coincidentally (I'm sure) I was unable to read the article on Google Chrome.
 
2014-07-14 09:40:31 AM  

damageddude: Knowing that this article is troll bait, I'll still bite:

It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly that was going to take over the world, and people were worried about Borders and Barnes and Noble killing all the little bookstores while Blockbuster was eliminating the mom and pop video stores. Now, two of those companies are gone and Microsoft isn't the dominate player it was. Today it's a Google/Amazon world. Tomorrow it will be somebody else.

However, broadband should be regulated like other public utilities. They are all the keys to our economy.


Well, before Blockbuster, Borders, and Barnes & Noble all went bust, they did kill off a LOT of small video shops and bookstores.
 
2014-07-14 09:42:08 AM  

badhatharry: Tell you what. You give us back healthcare and we'll give you facebook.


Healthcare was taken away from you?
 
2014-07-14 09:42:52 AM  

lilbjorn: Ha!  Just coincidentally (I'm sure) I was unable to read the article on Google Chrome.


What? I read it on Google Chrome. Somebody on Salon wrote we need to nationalize Wal-Mart.
 
2014-07-14 09:43:12 AM  
So the headline says libs want to nationalize Google, the article says one woman said to make broadband a utility in a book.

/don't want the feds to be my ISP though
 
2014-07-14 09:43:18 AM  
I certainly don't think they should be nationalized, but Amazon's monopolistic tendencies (particularly WRT the book market) and their Wal-Mart-like strong-arming of suppliers/publishers does concern me, and cannot be good for consumers in the long run.

I've been a customer of Amazon back since they only sold books, but as they have grown more and more powerful I have been more supportive of alternatives.  Competition is needed.
 
2014-07-14 09:46:54 AM  
this is satire right? Like that Orange is the New Black cancellation news that's been going around. Surely they can't be serious.
 
2014-07-14 09:49:46 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Ambivalence: I think the internet should, itself, be classified as a public utility.  But that doesn't mean it should be nationalized since, as we all know, private companies can own public utilities (electric companies, water utilities, trash disposal, they are often owned by private companies).  There are just more rules involved to defend the "public" from private abuse.

This would be especially useful in the case of telcom companies as a way to strengthen net neutrality rules.

But that's just me.  I do not speak for anyone but myself.

I was going to say:   The author is an idiot, but the idea of telecoms as public utilities has done wonders for my hometown.   For $35/month, you get 20/20 fiberoptic to the house.   And everything - tech support, call center, etc - is local.  If I have a problem, I call a local number, talk to people I see at the ballpark on a regular basis, and they almost always send someone out in less than 24 hours.

But the telecoms got scared shiatless, and like in several other states they bribed the NC General Assembly into making it virtually impossible for other cities in North Carolina to do the same.  Two dozen cities were watching how Greenlight take off, and started exploring their own municipal bond projects.  The General Assembly even had the audacity to call it the "Level Playing Field Act".

And now that they've got their effective monopolies, Slime-Warner and Comcast have done jack shiat to improve their existing cable infrastructure.  Why should TWC care?  The only place they've had to lower their rates due to real competition is in Wilson County.


I like the sound of this.
 
2014-07-14 09:49:52 AM  
Hey, I think it's a great idea. I'd like to see exactly how someone could engineer a faulty book recall.
 
2014-07-14 09:53:08 AM  

Moosecakes: Well, before Blockbuster, Borders, and Barnes & Noble all went bust, they did kill off a LOT of small video shops and bookstores.


It has been hilarious to see how companies that touted the free market as they destroyed competition have been equally destroyed by the same open market (especially Blockbuster).  That being said I hate the fact there are no non-Redbox video options within 20 miles of me.
 
2014-07-14 09:54:49 AM  
If the Obamacare website doesn't work, please explain how I was just able, in a few keystrokes, to sign up for Obamacare, get pre-approved for gender modification AND  get approval for fertility therapy so I can become a welfare mom?

/I'll miss my penis but I think the welfare payments for me and my babbies will more than make up for the loss
 
2014-07-14 09:55:51 AM  

Egoy3k: docrhody: Personally, I think government should be limited to Military, emergency services, and garbage pick-up.

Yeah fark poor people and screw public safety am I right?


B-b-but churches and the Hand of the Marketplace!
 
2014-07-14 09:57:28 AM  
I feel bad that I find myself agreeing with some leftists bullshiat from Salon.
 
2014-07-14 09:57:59 AM  

mistrmind: B-b-buh-but it's all BUSH's FAULT!!!!


Well, the article does quote Al Gore; who, we know, invented the Internet all by himself... and we pay him for it out of our own gladly given tax dollars... can you get the inner tubez on the Obamma Fone?

PS:  Don't tell Salon about the long lease fiber all over the country, plus under sea cable companies, nor about all those pesky fereniers; who might have a thing to say about the US Government owning their intra-tubez...
PSS: I betcha this Salon author has to pay comcast or AT&T a monthly cable/dsl bill; don't ja know.
PSSS: Free Internet at the Library, well, until the County closes down all the libraries 'cause they ran out of tax dollars to spend on "Free"... ouch.
PSSSS: You keep using that word 'FREE'; I don't think it means what you think it means...
 
2014-07-14 09:58:19 AM  

docrhody: Nobody born after the baby boomers will agree with anything this guy said.  I just hate that he left no way to reply to his uninformed argument.  Typical, we'll just take what we want, if we can't take, we control it and run it into the ground.  It's time to wake up and expose these people for the spoiled brats they are.  They used their numbers to rob their parents, and now they steal the future to make their life easy.  Talk about "tyranny of the majority."  And this person is a liberal following classic liberal logic.  Liberals want the expansion of government and government control.  Modern young people think they are liberal because they support gay marriage and marijuana legalization.  This actually removes government control and is classically conservative.  Now that your brain is all twisted up-- most people are socially "liberal" and fiscally conservative.  Or by classic definition conservative.  They changed the textbooks to tell everyone they were liberal.  Read one from before 1970.  And today's republicans are not conservative, they are liberal by classic definition.  They decided to change the definition to divide the voters in hopes of winning elections.  Personally, I think government should be limited to Military, emergency services, and garbage pick-up.


Too rational.  People will cherry pick a couple of your lines and only respond to a strawman argument they make up about them. (my prediction also being a strawman of sorts).

Boomers in the 60's get the government outta my life man!
Boomers in the 70's get the government outta my life man, I wanna smoke weed!
Boomers in the 80's I wanna do some coke! Let me earn some cash get the government out of my way with regulations!
Boomers in the 90's Whoah, that coke messed me up, better put every brown person in jail for selling coke to me!
Boomers in the 00's Damn, that coke made my peener soft, get me some meds to make it hard!
Boomers in the 10's These peener meds cost too much, give me government money to pay for it!
Boomers in the 20's Damn, I burned up all my money on coke and peener meds! Gov't take over my life and pay for it till I die!
 
2014-07-14 09:58:30 AM  

Moosecakes: Well, before Blockbuster, Borders, and Barnes & Noble all went bust, they did kill off a LOT of small video shops and bookstores.


Barnes & Noble is still around.

And while its Nook business (which it is apparently going to spin-off into a separate company) hasn't gone so great, it's chain of brick-and-mortar bookstores is actually profitable, which means they will likely be sticking around for a while.
 
2014-07-14 10:01:14 AM  
The only thing more idiotic than this article is the person who labeled it "liberal logic".
 
2014-07-14 10:01:49 AM  

ragekage: Yeah, but then you have to live in Chapel Hill, and, as well all know, Carolina sucks.

Just sayin'.


You misspelled 'Wilson'.
 
2014-07-14 10:01:54 AM  

smashyou: What the hell is this article? I'm one of those super-libby libs, and if some farktard started with this shiat in my presence I'd whack him upside the head for stoopid. Is this just an elaborate troll/strawman by the secret-conservative Salon?

Author makes sense about how broadband internet ought to be a public utility, but that is a settled matter among non-idiots last I checked. How he makes the stretch from "Google uses the internet" to "Nationalization of private companies because children" is beyond me.

/I'm a hoar for troll bait, what can I say


The difference between Cons and Libs - when a Lib says something, we don't mind disagreeing.
 
2014-07-14 10:03:38 AM  

Moosecakes: damageddude: Knowing that this article is troll bait, I'll still bite:

It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly that was going to take over the world, and people were worried about Borders and Barnes and Noble killing all the little bookstores while Blockbuster was eliminating the mom and pop video stores. Now, two of those companies are gone and Microsoft isn't the dominate player it was. Today it's a Google/Amazon world. Tomorrow it will be somebody else.

However, broadband should be regulated like other public utilities. They are all the keys to our economy.

Well, before Blockbuster, Borders, and Barnes & Noble all went bust, they did kill off a LOT of small video shops and bookstores.


Do you honestly think those bookstores or video stores would have survived either way? Hell, look at Lowe's, Home depot, and Ace... have you see a hardware store recently that isn't one of them? I haven't. I still see bookstores on a regular basis, both in small towns like Santa Fe and in larger ones like Denver. I don't think I've seen a mom and pop hardware store in over a decade. What about music stores? Aside from used ones I haven't seen a CD/Tape/record store in awhile. Even those chains went away.

Btw, just because some video stores and book stores died doesn't mean large chains killed them. It means people didn't go there and they stopped making money. In the case of commodities like books, they are trivial to transport, easily replaced by electronic text (e-books), can be had for free (public libraries), and were sold over reasonable value (especially when you get to specialty books like text books). There's a lot of factors that lead to mom and pop book stores becoming less common, but claiming it's directly 2 chain bookstores that caused it is ridiculous. They make have played a role due to being more convenient or providing availability, but bookstores were going down either way, which is why Borders is dead and Barnes And Nobles is trying so hard to get into Ebooks and sells games and other things now.
 
2014-07-14 10:04:43 AM  

INeedAName: smashyou: What the hell is this article? I'm one of those super-libby libs, and if some farktard started with this shiat in my presence I'd whack him upside the head for stoopid. Is this just an elaborate troll/strawman by the secret-conservative Salon?

Author makes sense about how broadband internet ought to be a public utility, but that is a settled matter among non-idiots last I checked. How he makes the stretch from "Google uses the internet" to "Nationalization of private companies because children" is beyond me.

/I'm a hoar for troll bait, what can I say

The difference between Cons and Libs - when a Lib says something, we don't mind disagreeing.


Just one of the many things that makes you superior. And smug.
 
2014-07-14 10:05:05 AM  
So the first page of this thread is a bunch of self-identified libs calling this article crap.  The second page is the usual derpers derping.

Mission accomplished.
 
2014-07-14 10:06:43 AM  
Oh man american conservatives are so cute. They wouldn't know liberal if it squatted in their house long enough to get control.
 
2014-07-14 10:07:06 AM  

Quantumbunny: Barnes And Nobles is trying so hard to get into Ebooks


As I wrote above, B&N is actually trying to get out of ebooks at the moment.

It's decided to spin off its highly unprofitable Nook business and focus on its brick-and-mortar stores which still turn a profit.

Which is a shame, since Nooks weren't bad devices and their ebook selection was actually pretty good.
 
2014-07-14 10:11:48 AM  

docrhody: Nobody born after the baby boomers will agree with anything this guy said.  I just hate that he left no way to reply to his uninformed argument.  Typical, we'll just take what we want, if we can't take, we control it and run it into the ground.  It's time to wake up and expose these people for the spoiled brats they are.  They used their numbers to rob their parents, and now they steal the future to make their life easy.  Talk about "tyranny of the majority."  And this person is a liberal following classic liberal logic.  Liberals want the expansion of government and government control.  Modern young people think they are liberal because they support gay marriage and marijuana legalization.  This actually removes government control and is classically conservative.  Now that your brain is all twisted up-- most people are socially "liberal" and fiscally conservative.  Or by classic definition conservative.  They changed the textbooks to tell everyone they were liberal.  Read one from before 1970.  And today's republicans are not conservative, they are liberal by classic definition.  They decided to change the definition to divide the voters in hopes of winning elections.  Personally, I think government should be limited to Military, emergency services, and garbage pick-up.


Wow, it's Pocket Ninja, only serious.
 
2014-07-14 10:12:14 AM  
Liberal logic explained by conservatives is never liberal logic. Not sure if they are trying to make liberals angry with the "Liberal logic 101" stuff or if they are just that detached from reality. Probably both.
 
2014-07-14 10:14:49 AM  
Granted I skimmed over the list of 'reasons' because my brain can only handle so much derp in the AM, but let's take a look at each rationale in order, shall we?

Big Tech's services have become a necessity in modern society.
SFW?  So is food.  Is food nationalized?

They're at or near monopoly status - and moving fast.
Believe it on not, I agree.  But there's a solution: the Sherman Anti-Trust act.  Of further information Google (heh) Ma Bell.

They abuse their power.
Wow!  Amazing straw man slaying there!  Just curious, would they be any less abusive with Uncle Sam wielding the power?  The proposed solution makes them more powerful and gives the power to the government.  Bad idea.

They got there with our help.
As Way South noted, that's like saying car companies got there because of spending on the highway system.

The real "commodity" is us.
Again, SFW?  We are not the government, contrary to your peoples' poet delusions.

Our privacy is dying ... or already dead.
And giving Google to the NSA will help.  Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure!

Freedom of information is at risk.
Not this excrement again.  (insert snark about the most transparent administration ever)

The free market could become even less free.
The solution to crony capitalism is not government take over unless yo want to end up waiting in line for toilet paper as in Caracas.  The solution is to encourage competition.

They could hijack the future.
An empty slogan for empty heads.
 
2014-07-14 10:15:19 AM  
FTA: "
They're huge and ruthless and define our lives. They're close to monopolies. Let's make them public utilities
 "

Hey... we should nationalize the government!
 
2014-07-14 10:17:51 AM  

themindiswatching: subby once again confuses some random crackpot on Salon with the liberals that don't live in his head.


This is Fark, so if one person from a group does something or thinks in some way, it means all people in that group do it. Especially when it comes to politics.
 
2014-07-14 10:22:38 AM  

Quantumbunny: Hell, look at Lowe's, Home depot, and Ace... have you see a hardware store recently that isn't one of them?


Menards?

Quantumbunny: just because some video stores and book stores died doesn't mean large chains killed them.


For video stores it is (in areas I've lived) absolutely true.  Long before VOD, streaming video that isn't real player based, etc. there were dozens of independent video stores.  The came Blockbuster.  I can think of several instances where BB setup their store in the same strip mall as a mom and pop video store.  The mom and pop store (which was thriving before) could not compete on volume.  That's why there is a certain amount of joy to see the predator become the prey.

//Mom and pop video stores might not have survived in today's market either, but they would have gotten to it without Blockbuster.
 
2014-07-14 10:25:02 AM  

Quantumbunny: Hell, look at Lowe's, Home depot, and Ace... have you see a hardware store recently that isn't one of them?


Menards.  And they're awesome.

There are also many other small local hardware stores.  And they're also awesome, because they've got the oddball crap for fixing stuff in older houses and they're specific to the things that were used in your local area and a lot of them also do small engine repair.  Home Depot and Lowe's really only target new construction.  Most local hardware stores are independently operated franchises of Ace, Do It Best or True Value.

Back to TFA, there are about 50 different video sharing websites you can use if you don't like YouTube.  Or you can buy a Qnap Snap server and run your own.  That's a market with very low barriers to entry.  And if you must get government involved, that's the number one issue they can focus on, barriers to entry.  The easier it is to get in business and provide competition, the better off we'll all be.

The other thing that we can do is public ownership, done the right way.  Don't nationalize these companies.  That's a really bad idea.  Instead, institute a 2% tax and use that to universally fund investment accounts for all citizens, with the caveat that you can only withdraw dividends and never principal.  Sure, some idiots will still find a way to lose everything, but some people just can't be helped.  99% of the population will still be vastly better off.  This is an approach I like to call libertarian communism.
 
2014-07-14 10:25:45 AM  
They'll just get a bailout like GM did if they ever crash while being too big to fail.
 
2014-07-14 10:26:06 AM  
Out yourself Subby
 
2014-07-14 10:27:46 AM  
The constitution provides for the postal service, and back when that was written, snail mail was the only way for people to communicate over long distance. They felt that it was the government's duty to facilitate communication and the  exchange of information. So, very likely, if they were to come back to life, and not as tricorn hat zombies, but as real flesh and blood people, they would want to nationalize the telecoms. And then they'd all start surfing for porn. Lots and lots of porn.
 
2014-07-14 10:28:50 AM  

NewWorldDan: Menards. And they're awesome.


Beat you by this much.
 
2014-07-14 10:29:15 AM  
That's "liberal logic" and not "my favorite website logic"? How conservative logic of you.
 
2014-07-14 10:29:31 AM  
"Liberal..."
What?  Huh?
 
2014-07-14 10:30:07 AM  
.find_in_page{background-color:#ffff00 !important;padding:0px;margin:0px;overflow:visible !important;}.findysel{background-color:#ff9632 !important;padding:0px;margin:0px;overflow:visible !important;}

EvilEgg: I support this and all far left guys, if only to show Americans what a real far left position is, so we can move the conversation back towards the middle.


Far left, sure it is, and Sarah Palin tells you that the New York Times engages in "yellow journalism".

Being a tea partier must be great, you open your mouth, any old thing comes out, and your fellow party members believe it, and nobody even thinks of looking in a book or a dictionary.
 
2014-07-14 10:32:25 AM  

MindStalker: damageddude: It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly

Nobody (that was anybody) wanted Microsoft broken up or owned by the government. People were just saying that they needed more oversight and forced to stop their arguably illegal bundling of products.


Which was kind of hilarious in hindsight, because Microsoft's own arrogant failure to update their browser substantially after they took over the market is what really gave upstarts like Firefox and Chrome a chance to end the Microsoft monopoly on the internet. It was basically a textbook case of the free market self correcting. I'm generally for the government helping regulate monopolies, but the Microsoft case was just idiotic and had no real impact on anything, especially since EVERY current OS includes a bundled default browser.

At least it didn't go quite as full derp as the EU decision, which adds a stupid browser ballot during setup, even though customers will get asked to download and install Chrome every time they go to Google's homepage. As far as antitrust litigation goes, the Microsoft cases were the worst wastes of time ever.
 
2014-07-14 10:35:56 AM  
Big Tech's services have become a necessity in modern society.

Google and Amazon are by no means a "necessity." That's like saying Facebook is a "necessity."
 
2014-07-14 10:36:47 AM  

Wolfmanjames: Granted I skimmed over the list of 'reasons' because my brain can only handle so much derp in the AM, but let's take a look at each rationale in order, shall we?

Big Tech's services have become a necessity in modern society.
SFW?  So is food.  Is food nationalized?

They're at or near monopoly status - and moving fast.
Believe it on not, I agree.  But there's a solution: the Sherman Anti-Trust act.  Of further information Google (heh) Ma Bell.

They abuse their power.
Wow!  Amazing straw man slaying there!  Just curious, would they be any less abusive with Uncle Sam wielding the power?  The proposed solution makes them more powerful and gives the power to the government.  Bad idea.

They got there with our help.
As Way South noted, that's like saying car companies got there because of spending on the highway system.

The real "commodity" is us.
Again, SFW?  We are not the government, contrary to your peoples' poet delusions.

Our privacy is dying ... or already dead.
And giving Google to the NSA will help.  Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure!

Freedom of information is at risk.
Not this excrement again.  (insert snark about the most transparent administration ever)

The free market could become even less free.
The solution to crony capitalism is not government take over unless yo want to end up waiting in line for toilet paper as in Caracas.  The solution is to encourage competition.

They could hijack the future.
An empty slogan for empty heads.


Odds are your food got to you on trucks on public highways...  But good point about crony capitalism, although at some point if your capitalist is big enough the competition isn't going to be there.

The Sherman act is kind of what the article is about, isn't it?
 
2014-07-14 10:37:32 AM  
What website doesn't work for 800 million?
 
2014-07-14 10:37:38 AM  

1derful: And this is a surprise how?

Read Karl Marx, the liberal's version of Thomas Jefferson, if you really want to know what they think.


Please shut up until you gain some intelligence.
 
2014-07-14 10:39:09 AM  

Doc Daneeka: I certainly don't think they should be nationalized, but Amazon's monopolistic tendencies (particularly WRT the book market) and their Wal-Mart-like strong-arming of suppliers/publishers does concern me, and cannot be good for consumers in the long run.

I've been a customer of Amazon back since they only sold books, but as they have grown more and more powerful I have been more supportive of alternatives.  Competition is needed.


Hatchette is a hilarious example for people to keep bringing up, since they plead guilty to conspiring to fix e-book prices with other publishers. In my eyes, Amazon is somewhat forgiven for playing hardball because their opponent has already fought dirty and been called out by the DoJ. Hatchette isn't some innocent little mom and pop business, but rather is a huge publisher who fought tooth and nail to screw customers out of their cash by keeping prices artificially high.
 
2014-07-14 10:47:58 AM  

Cletus C.: INeedAName: smashyou: What the hell is this article? I'm one of those super-libby libs, and if some farktard started with this shiat in my presence I'd whack him upside the head for stoopid. Is this just an elaborate troll/strawman by the secret-conservative Salon?

Author makes sense about how broadband internet ought to be a public utility, but that is a settled matter among non-idiots last I checked. How he makes the stretch from "Google uses the internet" to "Nationalization of private companies because children" is beyond me.

/I'm a hoar for troll bait, what can I say

The difference between Cons and Libs - when a Lib says something, we don't mind disagreeing.

Just one of the many things that makes you superior. And smug.


[raised hand]

Why isn't it "smug" when a conservative sneers at a liberal?
 
2014-07-14 10:49:43 AM  
The author's name is RJ and the idea comes from a book someone wrote for attention.

Yep, great idea. Let's roll with it.
 
2014-07-14 10:49:50 AM  

1derful: And this is a surprise how?

Read Karl Marx, the liberal's version of Thomas Jefferson, if you really want to know what they think.


Actual Marxists do not like liberals: How to Combat Liberalism
 
2014-07-14 10:52:45 AM  

yakmans_dad: Why isn't it "smug" when a conservative sneers at a liberal?


they are in a lower caste
 
2014-07-14 10:56:01 AM  
Yeah, Google is pretty much the  opposite of 'created by public money'.

The poured a farkton of private money into making a publicly-supported project that was all but useless to the average person and making it actually  function on a basic level.  The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.

// In fairness, calling Salon "Liberal logic" as if it's representative is sort of like calling NRO representative of right-wing logic.  This isn't really coming from the actual-party-supported-statements corner of the internet, this is the special ed class shared with Drudge and the unskewed guy and occasionally Slate.
 
2014-07-14 10:57:35 AM  

Skarekrough: I_Am_Weasel: This is the first I've heard of this and I've been at the meetings.

The thing is that at the meetings only stuff on the docket gets discussed.

You need to go to the meeting at Applebee's AFTER the meetings where they discuss what's going to be on the docket for next week.  That's when they put together the list and decide how it's going to play out.

They've got a deal where they'll honor the $.50 wings and $1 drafts deal they do on Tuesday night.


this explains why so many of the ideas are so terrible, it's a reflection of the diet
 
2014-07-14 10:57:57 AM  
Well, someone on the left finally matched the stupidity of the teabaggers. I'll be damned.
 
2014-07-14 10:59:08 AM  

Jim_Callahan: The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.


lol
 
2014-07-14 11:00:35 AM  
Oh, look. A troll headline to a garbage article on a website nobody here seems to like gets greened and generates well over 100 comments.

Since Fark's primary guideline for greening things on this tab seems solely to be the amount of froth it will generate, can somebody explain to me why there's a de facto ban on sites like Free Republic? If you're going to go retard with this tab to generate page hits, why not just go full retard and drop the pretensions?
 
2014-07-14 11:00:36 AM  

neenerist: MithrandirBooga: amusing it would be today if someone tried suing a company for including a web browser with its operating system for free

In the Internet's early days of course Microsoft attempted to leverage its overwhelming market position to 'extend' web standards in proprietary ways they owned. It seems silly now because they failed. Truly market competitive OSes didn't exist yet.


Even with the DoJ decision, IE6 was still the de facto web standard through the first half of the 2000s. The court case did NOTHING to change things. What made a difference was that IE6 was allowed to stagnate for half a decade, which gave Firefox an opening when it was ready to release a stable 1.0 version in late 2004. That's what makes the software business different. A lazy monopolist can easily have a competitor come out of nowhere because the barriers to entry for software are relatively low for most common apps (something like Photoshop is a different matter), and a web browser is something that is especially easy for open source projects like Webkit and Mozilla to give the big boys a run for their money.

It was literally the worst thing to base an anti-trust trial around, because the free market resolved itself in a matter of years once Microsoft let the ethnology stagnate because of their monopoly position.
 
2014-07-14 11:02:53 AM  

Ambivalence: I think the internet should, itself, be classified as a public utility.  But that doesn't mean it should be nationalized since, as we all know, private companies can own public utilities (electric companies, water utilities, trash disposal, they are often owned by private companies).  There are just more rules involved to "defend" the "public" from private abuse.

This would be especially useful in the case of telcom companies as a way to strengthen net neutrality rules.

But that's just me.  I do not speak for anyone but myself.


Quotes in the wrong place, buddy.
 
2014-07-14 11:03:05 AM  
They have already bought the agencies that exercise any control over them, much like Brawndo buying the FDA.
 
2014-07-14 11:04:13 AM  
We need to balance the needs of the one with the needs of the society. Dystopia lies at the extremes of both.
 
2014-07-14 11:05:08 AM  

Ambivalence: I think the internet should, itself, be classified as a public utility. But that doesn't mean it should be nationalized since, as we all know, private companies can own public utilities (electric companies, water utilities, trash disposal, they are often owned by private companies). There are just more rules involved to defend the "public" from private abuse.


This I can support.

Quantumbunny: Do you honestly think those bookstores or video stores would have survived either way? Hell, look at Lowe's, Home depot, and Ace... have you see a hardware store recently that isn't one of them? I haven't. I still see bookstores on a regular basis, both in small towns like Santa Fe and in larger ones like Denver. I don't think I've seen a mom and pop hardware store in over a decade. What about music stores? Aside from used ones I haven't seen a CD/Tape/record store in awhile. Even those chains went away.


I've been in two hardware stores that aren't on your list.  One was specialized in plumbing and was obviously aimed at professionals.  The tool I was after was stored in back with no indication that the store carried it--if you didn't ask you would never know.  A day earlier I hadn't even known there was such a tool.  Customer support told me about it, the local Home Depot directed me to the specialty place so I went and asked.

The second one is more general but again seems more directed at pros than the average DIYer.  I'm batting 0 for 3 on finding what I want there, though.
 
2014-07-14 11:06:28 AM  

Why are we getting Politics links (and their associated whackjobs) in the Geek tab?

 
2014-07-14 11:06:43 AM  

Mad_Radhu: MindStalker: damageddude: It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly

Nobody (that was anybody) wanted Microsoft broken up or owned by the government. People were just saying that they needed more oversight and forced to stop their arguably illegal bundling of products.

Which was kind of hilarious in hindsight, because Microsoft's own arrogant failure to update their browser substantially after they took over the market is what really gave upstarts like Firefox and Chrome a chance to end the Microsoft monopoly on the internet. It was basically a textbook case of the free market self correcting. I'm generally for the government helping regulate monopolies, but the Microsoft case was just idiotic and had no real impact on anything, especially since EVERY current OS includes a bundled default browser.

At least it didn't go quite as full derp as the EU decision, which adds a stupid browser ballot during setup, even though customers will get asked to download and install Chrome every time they go to Google's homepage. As far as antitrust litigation goes, the Microsoft cases were the worst wastes of time ever.


IIRC the major issue with the MS trial was that they were bundling their web server with everything they sold, not just their server products, no less.  And selling the Netscape web server was Netscape's business model, not selling browsers, so MS really was killing them with the OS/web server bundle; the battle was never about browsers.

There was a time when people were trying to sell browsers and those companies are long gone...MS and Google can afford to give stuff away so that  is still kinda a monopoly of two...  Linux and the Mozilla people are the real heroes of this story.
 
2014-07-14 11:10:47 AM  

Mad_Radhu: Doc Daneeka: I certainly don't think they should be nationalized, but Amazon's monopolistic tendencies (particularly WRT the book market) and their Wal-Mart-like strong-arming of suppliers/publishers does concern me, and cannot be good for consumers in the long run.

I've been a customer of Amazon back since they only sold books, but as they have grown more and more powerful I have been more supportive of alternatives.  Competition is needed.

Hatchette is a hilarious example for people to keep bringing up, since they plead guilty to conspiring to fix e-book prices with other publishers. In my eyes, Amazon is somewhat forgiven for playing hardball because their opponent has already fought dirty and been called out by the DoJ. Hatchette isn't some innocent little mom and pop business, but rather is a huge publisher who fought tooth and nail to screw customers out of their cash by keeping prices artificially high.


I didn't bring up the example of Hachette, you did.  I was referring to Amazon's business practices generally.

The antitrust case is an interesting one.  The publishers should certainly not have colluded to fix prices, but on the other hand, it's worth noting that they did so in an attempt to break Amazon's control of the market and actually introduce competition (in the form of Apple).  The publishers were in the wrong, but that doesn't mean I think Amazon were "the good guys."  There aren't really any good guys in that dispute, and I wouldn't be surprised if in the future, the ebook industry is again the subject of antitrust investigations, this time with Amazon the subject.

In some respects I think that supporting Amazon in these disputes is a sort of faustian bargain.  Consumers may benefit in the short-term from Amazon's hard-line and deep discounting, but at the expense of handing them ever-greater leverage and control over an entire industry.  And when Amazon eventually has de facto control over the entire book industry, from negotiating with authors, to publishing, to promotion, to retail - will that be good for consumers then?  When everyone is locked-in to the Kindle ecosystem and there aren't viable alternatives or real competition?
 
2014-07-14 11:13:45 AM  
The government can't even keep backup e-mails at the IRS, and you want them to regulate the internet?
 
2014-07-14 11:15:21 AM  

cig-mkr: The government can't even keep backup e-mails at the IRS, and you want them to regulate the internet?


Yes. How hard is that to understand? It's time to rein in the Wild West.
 
2014-07-14 11:16:29 AM  

meat0918: WTF?

Is this "Liberal Logic" something Republicans do to help them sleep at night?


Nope, it's their idea of a laxative.  Since they are all constipated old farts, they tell these stories to each other and shiat their pants.  Saves them a few bucks a month and they don't have to have the black nurse give their white ass an enema anymore and prove they are just runny little shiats.
 
2014-07-14 11:17:08 AM  

Headso: Jim_Callahan: The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.

lol


The original statement wasn't mine, but I don't see how it is LOL worthy.  Google, as a company, probably had more to do with shaping the current internet than any other publicly known company.  Google wouldn't have existed without the internet, but Google is now a verb for a reason.
 
2014-07-14 11:17:18 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Well, someone on the left finally matched the stupidity of the teabaggers. I'll be damned.


Yes! And now, let us celebrate like the teabaggers and raise this brilliant individual up on a pedestal to be admired by all!

Oh wait
 
2014-07-14 11:17:32 AM  

Jim_Callahan: The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.


This is a front runner for "the dumbest thing posted on the internet today".
 
2014-07-14 11:23:16 AM  

yakmans_dad: Cletus C.: INeedAName: smashyou: What the hell is this article? I'm one of those super-libby libs, and if some farktard started with this shiat in my presence I'd whack him upside the head for stoopid. Is this just an elaborate troll/strawman by the secret-conservative Salon?

Author makes sense about how broadband internet ought to be a public utility, but that is a settled matter among non-idiots last I checked. How he makes the stretch from "Google uses the internet" to "Nationalization of private companies because children" is beyond me.

/I'm a hoar for troll bait, what can I say

The difference between Cons and Libs - when a Lib says something, we don't mind disagreeing.

Just one of the many things that makes you superior. And smug.

[raised hand]

Why isn't it "smug" when a conservative sneers at a liberal?


Obviously because liberals are intellectually superior. What conservatives do is called derp.
 
2014-07-14 11:25:29 AM  

skozlaw: an somebody explain to me why there's a de facto ban on sites like Free Republic? If you're going to go retard with this tab to generate page hits, why not just go full retard and drop the pretensions?


For the same reason that "porn stars" don't refer to themselves as "whores".
 
2014-07-14 11:28:02 AM  

mjbok: Headso: Jim_Callahan: The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.

lol

The original statement wasn't mine, but I don't see how it is LOL worthy.  Google, as a company, probably had more to do with shaping the current internet than any other publicly known company.  Google wouldn't have existed without the internet, but Google is now a verb for a reason.


The part in bold is what makes it lol worthy.
 
2014-07-14 11:29:53 AM  

MindStalker: damageddude: It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly

Nobody (that was anybody) wanted Microsoft broken up or owned by the government. People were just saying that they needed more oversight and forced to stop their arguably illegal bundling of products.


IIRC, the government initially wanted Microsoft broken into two (an OS company and a company that sold everything else).
 
2014-07-14 11:30:11 AM  
FormlessOne: Why are we getting Politics links (and their associated whackjobs) in the Geek tab?

Cross contamination for Ad Revenue

 
2014-07-14 11:30:35 AM  

mjbok: //Mom and pop video stores might not have survived in today's market either, but they would have gotten to it without Blockbuster.


 [Randal is on the phone when a woman and little girl come to the counter]
'Happy-Scrappy' Mom: Excuse me, do you sell videos?
Randal Graves: Yeah, what're you looking for?
'Happy-Scrappy' Mom: Happy Scrappy Hero Pup.
Randal Graves: Uh, once second. I'm on the phone with the distribution house now, lemme make sure they got it.
'Happy-Scrappy' Mom: 'Kay.
Randal Graves: What's it called again?
'Happy-Scrappy' Mom: Happy Scrappy Hero Pup.
'Happy-Scrappy' Kid: Happy Scrappy!
'Happy-Scrappy' Mom: She loves it.
Randal Graves: Obviously.
[into the phone]
Randal Graves: Uh, yeah, hi. This is RST Video calling. Customer number 4352, I'd like to place an order. Okay, I need one each of the following tapes: "Whispers in the Wind", "To Each His Own", "Put It Where It Doesn't Belong", "My Pipes Need Cleaning", "All ***-farking Volume 8", "I Need Your ****", "***-Worshipping ***-Jobbers", "My **** Needs Shafts", "*** Clean", "***-Gargling Naked Sluts", "*** Buns III", "***ming in Socks", "*** On Eileen", "Huge Black **** with Pearly White ***", "Girls Who Crave ****", "Girls Who Crave ****", "Men Alone II: The KY Connection", "Pink***** Lips", oh, yeah, and, uh, "All Holes Filled with Hard ****". Yup. Oh, wait a minute.
[to the woman]
Randal Graves: Uh, what was that called again?
 
2014-07-14 11:35:51 AM  

FormlessOne: Why are we getting Politics links (and their associated whackjobs) in the Geek tab?


The topic is about Amazon, Google and making broadband a public utility. I cannot for the life of me understand how this got into the Geek tab. Truly, it is a mystery.
 
2014-07-14 11:36:59 AM  

jst3p: mjbok: Headso: Jim_Callahan: The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.

lol

The original statement wasn't mine, but I don't see how it is LOL worthy.  Google, as a company, probably had more to do with shaping the current internet than any other publicly known company.  Google wouldn't have existed without the internet, but Google is now a verb for a reason.

The part in bold is what makes it lol worthy.


What if he had said "The Yellow Pages would not have existed without the telephone utilities"? Still LOL?
 
2014-07-14 11:40:44 AM  
I agree but they do not go far enough.  We need to nationalize all businesses that turn a profit.
 
2014-07-14 11:41:37 AM  

FormlessOne: Why are we getting Politics links (and their associated whackjobs) in the Geek tab?


Because fark you, that's why!

Sorry couldn't resist
 
2014-07-14 11:45:11 AM  
Is the health exchange being broken still a meme? Because they fixed it, like, almost a year ago.
 
2014-07-14 11:46:19 AM  

themindiswatching: subby once again confuses some random crackpot on Salon with the liberals that don't live in his head.


Nope, it sounds much like the lefties on Fark. This could have been written by czar or Weaver
 
2014-07-14 11:47:08 AM  

Jim_Callahan: // In fairness, calling Salon "Liberal logic" as if it's representative is sort of like calling NRO representative of right-wing logic.


The difference, of course, is that, at least on Fark, garbage like this from Salon is rightly called out as such, whereas garbage from NRO is adopted, defended, and repeated ad nauseum long after it has been shown to be idiotic.
 
2014-07-14 11:49:10 AM  

Nemo's Brother: themindiswatching: subby once again confuses some random crackpot on Salon with the liberals that don't live in his head.

Nope, it sounds much like the lefties on Fark. This could have been written by czar or Weaver


That just shows how warped your own perspective is.  You've got a thread full of "lefties" rightly calling this guy an idiot, and you're still convinced they'd all agree with him.
 
2014-07-14 11:53:24 AM  

mjbok: Quantumbunny: Hell, look at Lowe's, Home depot, and Ace... have you see a hardware store recently that isn't one of them?

Menards?


While living up to the words in that sentence... take it in context. I meant where are the mom and pop hardware stores? Menard's is hardly a one off mom and pop store, it's still a large chain.

As to other aspects... sure we could bring specialty large chains in the discussion as well like Greybar. I was focusing more on consumer end hardware stores.
 
2014-07-14 11:55:23 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Is the health exchange being broken still a meme? Because they fixed it, like, almost a year ago.


And the same company who F'ed it up in the first place (CGI) is still being given work for some reason. After F'ing up hundreds of millions of dollars of a project that should have been in the tens of millions, states and other businesses still give them work... which they F up. See Colorado's financial system CORE project replacement of COFRS.
 
2014-07-14 11:56:56 AM  

Nemo's Brother: themindiswatching: subby once again confuses some random crackpot on Salon with the liberals that don't live in his head.

Nope, it sounds much like the lefties on Fark. This could have been written by czar or Weaver


I'd love to see an example of a post here on Fark where someone seriously thinks this is a good idea.
 
kab
2014-07-14 11:56:57 AM  
Save this sort of argument for something like the oil industry, lady.
 
2014-07-14 11:57:23 AM  

DubyaHater: It's part of King Obama's plan.  He's already nationalized healthcare, sissified the military, and taxed us beyond our means.  Why not start nationalizing private enterprise?  It's the next logical step.


No, the next logical step is to dissolve the Senate and give the Regional governors direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line.
 
2014-07-14 11:58:04 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: jst3p: mjbok: Headso: Jim_Callahan: The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.

lol

The original statement wasn't mine, but I don't see how it is LOL worthy.  Google, as a company, probably had more to do with shaping the current internet than any other publicly known company.  Google wouldn't have existed without the internet, but Google is now a verb for a reason.

The part in bold is what makes it lol worthy.

What if he had said "The Yellow Pages would not have existed without the telephone utilities"? Still LOL?


You missed the point.
 
2014-07-14 11:59:00 AM  

fazookus: Mad_Radhu: MindStalker: damageddude: It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly

Nobody (that was anybody) wanted Microsoft broken up or owned by the government. People were just saying that they needed more oversight and forced to stop their arguably illegal bundling of products.

Which was kind of hilarious in hindsight, because Microsoft's own arrogant failure to update their browser substantially after they took over the market is what really gave upstarts like Firefox and Chrome a chance to end the Microsoft monopoly on the internet. It was basically a textbook case of the free market self correcting. I'm generally for the government helping regulate monopolies, but the Microsoft case was just idiotic and had no real impact on anything, especially since EVERY current OS includes a bundled default browser.

At least it didn't go quite as full derp as the EU decision, which adds a stupid browser ballot during setup, even though customers will get asked to download and install Chrome every time they go to Google's homepage. As far as antitrust litigation goes, the Microsoft cases were the worst wastes of time ever.

IIRC the major issue with the MS trial was that they were bundling their web server with everything they sold, not just their server products, no less.  And selling the Netscape web server was Netscape's business model, not selling browsers, so MS really was killing them with the OS/web server bundle; the battle was never about browsers.

There was a time when people were trying to sell browsers and those companies are long gone...MS and Google can afford to give stuff away so that  is still kinda a monopoly of two...  Linux and the Mozilla people are the real heroes of this story.


You, sir (or ma'am) are henceforth not allowed to comment on a thread in the geek tab.
 
2014-07-14 12:01:48 PM  

docrhody: Nobody born after the baby boomers will agree with anything this guy said.  I just hate that he left no way to reply to his uninformed argument.  Typical, we'll just take what we want, if we can't take, we control it and run it into the ground.  It's time to wake up and expose these people for the spoiled brats they are.  They used their numbers to rob their parents, and now they steal the future to make their life easy.  Talk about "tyranny of the majority."  And this person is a liberal following classic liberal logic.  Liberals want the expansion of government and government control.  Modern young people think they are liberal because they support gay marriage and marijuana legalization.  This actually removes government control and is classically conservative.  Now that your brain is all twisted up-- most people are socially "liberal" and fiscally conservative.  Or by classic definition conservative.  They changed the textbooks to tell everyone they were liberal.  Read one from before 1970.  And today's republicans are not conservative, they are liberal by classic definition.  They decided to change the definition to divide the voters in hopes of winning elections.  Personally, I think government should be limited to Military, emergency services, and garbage pick-up.


You've never actually taken any courses on political science, have you?
 
2014-07-14 12:16:41 PM  
Conservatard logic: Let's take this one opinion piece nobody has agreed with and proclaim it to be the opinion of all liberals!

Fark Mod logic: Greenlight, baby!
 
2014-07-14 12:17:30 PM  

jst3p: The part in bold is what makes it lol worthy.


I know some of y'all aren't out of high school yet and think that the internet has always been exactly what it is now, but those of us in our late 20s plus remember having to use it before the advent of competent search engine indexing and referencing, and can tell you it ain't even remotely similar.

Imagine if the best way to find something was to ask people about it more or less at random on FARK, with no way to even double-check the replies to tell if you're being trolled... except that the only way you'd even have access to something THAT good was if someone literally told you about it, with their mouth, in real life, or if you saw the URL on a TV ad and happened to memorize it with all the random prefixes and suffixes included.  Write down a couple wrong letters or miss a sub-page on a website without a default index page (there were a lot of those) and you'd essentially never find what you were looking for even with a direct address reference.

Google is pretty much what took 'hey, look at this useless novelty where you can send digital data over the phone' and turned it into the actual information age.

Henry Ford didn't make the first self-powered wheeled vehicle, either, but he did essentially invent automobiles.
 
2014-07-14 12:24:55 PM  
I couldn't make it past the first few sentences of that derp-fest.

Surely no actual human being could earnestly support such inanity?

*looks upthread*

ohferchrissakes!
 
2014-07-14 12:34:03 PM  

mjbok: Headso: Jim_Callahan: The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.

lol

The original statement wasn't mine, but I don't see how it is LOL worthy.  Google, as a company, probably had more to do with shaping the current internet than any other publicly known company.  Google wouldn't have existed without the internet, but Google is now a verb for a reason.


Yes, because it's the most popular search engine. Big farking deal. That's like saying the modern car owes its existence to Goodyear tire company to a far greater degree than the opposite. It's just purely irrational.
 
2014-07-14 12:34:50 PM  

Jim_Callahan: I know some of y'all aren't out of high school yet and think that the internet has always been exactly what it is now, but those of us in our late 20s plus remember having to use it before the advent of competent search engine indexing and referencing, and can tell you it ain't even remotely similar.


www.usg.edu

/ Excite was the real shiznit back in the day, though
 
2014-07-14 12:36:27 PM  

Nemo's Brother: themindiswatching: subby once again confuses some random crackpot on Salon with the liberals that don't live in his head.

Nope, it sounds much like the lefties on Fark. This could have been written by czar or Weaver


We really don't need the opinion of domestic terrorists and cold blooded murderers like you.

www.anniemayhem.com
 
2014-07-14 12:37:14 PM  

themindiswatching: subby once again confuses some random crackpot on Salon with the liberals that don't live in his head.


If the crackpots on the right represent everyone on the right, then this motherfarker can represent all of you. Own it.
 
2014-07-14 12:39:16 PM  

Chris Ween: If anything will turn Zuckerberg into a conservative it would be this unlikely scenario.


Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, escaped Soviet Russia in the 1980s. If anyone should be a raging right winger, or at least the second coming of Yakov Smirnov, it should be him. Yet he supports every lefty politician in SF, supports MoveOn.org, all of them. If he has no sense, none of them do.
 
2014-07-14 12:44:14 PM  

FormlessOne: It's time to rein in the Wild West.


Before the Wild West was tamed, it was actually a pretty safe place to live. Nowadays, it's far more dangerous to live in cities in the West than it was back when it was "wild". If by "rein in" you mean "make worse", then you're correct.
 
2014-07-14 12:44:32 PM  

Jim_Callahan: jst3p: The part in bold is what makes it lol worthy.

I know some of y'all aren't out of high school yet and think that the internet has always been exactly what it is now, but those of us in our late 20s plus remember having to use it before the advent of competent search engine indexing and referencing, and can tell you it ain't even remotely similar.


Oh god this. Alta-Vista was so awesome when it showed up.
 
2014-07-14 12:49:48 PM  
Businesses would be unable to participate in modern society without access to the services companies like Amazon, Google and Facebook provide. These services have become public marketplaces.

I'd actually like to kill facebook because a couple of my clients write updates on there when I keep telling them to use a blog as they can direct traffic, control content etc. Facebook is farking AOL all over again - closed, controlled, anti-web.
 
2014-07-14 12:51:06 PM  

damageddude: Knowing that this article is troll bait, I'll still bite:

It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly that was going to take over the world, and people were worried about Borders and Barnes and Noble killing all the little bookstores while Blockbuster was eliminating the mom and pop video stores. Now, two of those companies are gone and Microsoft isn't the dominate player it was. Today it's a Google/Amazon world. Tomorrow it will be somebody else.

However, broadband should be regulated like other public utilities. They are all the keys to our economy.


Microsoft did take over the world, most of the mom and pop video stores were eliminated and most little bookstores were killed. Have you been outside?

So what if something bigger came along and killed both of those companies? Now we have megacompanies fighting amongst themselves and buying regular companies you would have been proud to work for and buy from. The only competition is between bidders for the latest tech acquisition.
 
2014-07-14 12:53:40 PM  

farkeruk: Businesses would be unable to participate in modern society without access to the services companies like Amazon, Google and Facebook provide. These services have become public marketplaces.

I'd actually like to kill facebook because a couple of my clients write updates on there when I keep telling them to use a blog as they can direct traffic, control content etc. Facebook is farking AOL all over again - closed, controlled, anti-web.


The personal blog is dead and RSS is dead, and yeah we are worse off for it. Facebook is anti-web, but it's also anti-Google, which more or less controls how the web behaves.
 
2014-07-14 12:54:19 PM  

Egoy3k: Oh god this. Alta-Vista was so awesome when it showed up.


Aye, in fairness not JUST Google.  Still a bunch of private companies/money, though, which was my central point.
 
2014-07-14 12:57:20 PM  

jst3p: Jim_Callahan: The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.

This is a front runner for "the dumbest thing posted on the internet today".


Then you missed the Apple fantard defending the price fixing as if it was a good thing.
 
2014-07-14 12:59:35 PM  
To be fair, some small video stores managed to survive by rebranding:

cdn.cultofmac.com
 
2014-07-14 01:04:40 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Egoy3k: Oh god this. Alta-Vista was so awesome when it showed up.

Aye, in fairness not JUST Google.  Still a bunch of private companies/money, though, which was my central point.


On I was agreeing with you, Alta-Vista was the first 'indexing' engine that actually you know, indexed a decent portion of the internet but Google smashed everyone when it arrived.
 
2014-07-14 01:10:30 PM  

moothemagiccow: The personal blog is dead and RSS is dead, and yeah we are worse off for it. Facebook is anti-web, but it's also anti-Google, which more or less controls how the web behaves.


It all started with the crash of geocities.
 
2014-07-14 01:17:09 PM  

FormlessOne: cig-mkr: The government can't even keep backup e-mails at the IRS, and you want them to regulate the internet?

Yes. How hard is that to understand? It's time to rein in the Wild West.


The government already has enough to "reign in" right now, like the national budget, immigration, social security and the list goes on. BTW if you search "How many government agencies are there?" no one can give you an exact number.
 Besides that, suppose the gov did take over the internet, how long do you think it would take for them to outlaw porn sites ?
 
2014-07-14 01:21:04 PM  

damageddude: Knowing that this article is troll bait, I'll still bite:

It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly that was going to take over the world, and people were worried about Borders and Barnes and Noble killing all the little bookstores while Blockbuster was eliminating the mom and pop video stores. Now, two of those companies are gone and Microsoft isn't the dominate player it was. Today it's a Google/Amazon world. Tomorrow it will be somebody else.

However, broadband should be regulated like other public utilities. They are all the keys to our economy.


I'll give you Microsoft, but Border and B&N did, in fact, pretty much decimate the small bookstore market. They, in turn, got destroyed by an even bigger shark called Amazon. This means that books sales are even more consolidated than ever.
 
2014-07-14 01:21:41 PM  

cig-mkr: FormlessOne: cig-mkr: The government can't even keep backup e-mails at the IRS, and you want them to regulate the internet?

Yes. How hard is that to understand? It's time to rein in the Wild West.

The government already has enough to "reign in" right now, like the national budget, immigration, social security and the list goes on. BTW if you search "How many government agencies are there?" no one can give you an exact number.
 Besides that, suppose the gov did take over the internet, how long do you think it would take for them to outlaw porn sites ?


Just like porn can't be delivered through the US Post Office, right?
 
2014-07-14 01:24:23 PM  

Quantumbunny: both in small towns like Santa Fe and in larger ones like Denver


Where do you live that Santa Fe is a small town and Denver is a large town? Here in rural south central Colorado we call both Santa Fe and Denver "big cities".
 
2014-07-14 01:29:26 PM  
If Google shouldn't be owned by the people then we should at least acknowledge it as the monopoly that it is and begin the break-up. Seize the domain names, split the company into a thousand different companies define the API and then let anybody buy a portion of the traffic behind a load balancer. Repeat for the rest of the major internet monopolies.
 
2014-07-14 01:34:45 PM  

Jim_Callahan: jst3p: The part in bold is what makes it lol worthy.

I know some of y'all aren't out of high school yet and think that the internet has always been exactly what it is now, but those of us in our late 20s plus remember having to use it before the advent of competent search engine indexing and referencing, and can tell you it ain't even remotely similar.

Imagine if the best way to find something was to ask people about it more or less at random on FARK, with no way to even double-check the replies to tell if you're being trolled... except that the only way you'd even have access to something THAT good was if someone literally told you about it, with their mouth, in real life, or if you saw the URL on a TV ad and happened to memorize it with all the random prefixes and suffixes included.  Write down a couple wrong letters or miss a sub-page on a website without a default index page (there were a lot of those) and you'd essentially never find what you were looking for even with a direct address reference.

Google is pretty much what took 'hey, look at this useless novelty where you can send digital data over the phone' and turned it into the actual information age.

Henry Ford didn't make the first self-powered wheeled vehicle, either, but he did essentially invent automobiles.


I am 39 and work in IT. I appreciate all the google has accomplished. That being said the statement " The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite." is still a dumb statement. Google is an impossibility without the internet, the reverse is not true.
 
2014-07-14 01:40:51 PM  

umad: themindiswatching: subby once again confuses some random crackpot on Salon with the liberals that don't live in his head.

If the crackpots on the right represent everyone on the right, then this motherfarker can represent all of you. Own it.


lol.
 
2014-07-14 01:40:55 PM  

rwdavis: If Google shouldn't be owned by the people then we should at least acknowledge it as the monopoly that it is and begin the break-up. Seize the domain names, split the company into a thousand different companies define the API and then let anybody buy a portion of the traffic behind a load balancer. Repeat for the rest of the major internet monopolies.


Very reasonable idea.
 
2014-07-14 01:48:22 PM  
Go and look up what companies made up the DJIA over the years. I think General Electric is the only company to stay on there any length of time. Hell, go back far enough and there's a streetcar company on the list.

All the companies will fail eventually, just as they crushed those who came before. Because they are launched by visionaries, people with brilliant ideas and new methods. Then they get run by MBAs like Mitt Romney. So let the companies run along as they are, someday Google's decline will get bad enough people turn to other searches. Amazon's already infested with MBAs who have made the gross mistake of telling customers other online book dealers exist. Ebay could be wiped out if you were to power up a version free of drop shippers and spammers.  Just because they seem dominant doesn't make them so, as any user of Compuserve or Yahoo might remember.
 
2014-07-14 01:49:43 PM  

untaken_name: FormlessOne: It's time to rein in the Wild West.

Before the Wild West was tamed, it was actually a pretty safe place to live. Nowadays, it's far more dangerous to live in cities in the West than it was back when it was "wild". If by "rein in" you mean "make worse", then you're correct.


You sir are an idiot with no sense of perspective and no knowledge of what you speak.
 
2014-07-14 01:52:07 PM  
I do think Google should be nationalized. Amazon and Facebook, no.

/DNRTFA.
 
2014-07-14 01:55:38 PM  

wildcardjack: Go and look up what companies made up the DJIA over the years. I think General Electric is the only company to stay on there any length of time. Hell, go back far enough and there's a streetcar company on the list.

All the companies will fail eventually, just as they crushed those who came before. Because they are launched by visionaries, people with brilliant ideas and new methods. Then they get run by MBAs like Mitt Romney. So let the companies run along as they are, someday Google's decline will get bad enough people turn to other searches. Amazon's already infested with MBAs who have made the gross mistake of telling customers other online book dealers exist. Ebay could be wiped out if you were to power up a version free of drop shippers and spammers.  Just because they seem dominant doesn't make them so, as any user of Compuserve or Yahoo might remember.


I don't care if companies die eventually. So will I. Long spans of time isn't a saving grace.
 
2014-07-14 01:55:40 PM  

themindiswatching: subby once again confuses some random crackpot on Salon with the liberals


This.

One random crazy person wants to nationalize a bunch of companies and all of a sudden its a liberal conspiracy.
 
2014-07-14 01:58:16 PM  

jst3p: I am 39 and work in IT. I appreciate all the google has accomplished. That being said the statement " The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite." is still a dumb statement. Google is an impossibility without the internet, the reverse is not true.


Google has a fairly lucrative line of business handling server side stuff for intranets as well.  Of course without the internet...
 
2014-07-14 02:08:08 PM  

Repo Man: 1derful: And this is a surprise how?

Read Karl Marx, the liberal's version of Thomas Jefferson, if you really want to know what they think.

Actual Marxists do not like liberals: How to Combat Liberalism


The only differences between Communism and socialism (or Progressivism or liberalism or Social Democrat-ism, or whatever they're calling it this week) are: (1) the pace of implementation, and (2) the willingness of its proponents to understand or discuss their true beliefs.
 
2014-07-14 02:16:39 PM  
It's only a matter of time before Google has a "too big to fail" moment.
 
2014-07-14 02:25:46 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: If the Obamacare website doesn't work, please explain how I was just able, in a few keystrokes, to sign up for Obamacare, get pre-approved for gender modification AND  get approval for fertility therapy so I can become a welfare mom?

/I'll miss my penis but I think the welfare payments for me and my babbies will more than make up for the loss


Plus you get the benefits of becoming a protected class of citizen rather than scraping the bottom of the barrel as a lowly white man. Win-win.
 
2014-07-14 02:26:53 PM  

Phinn: Repo Man: 1derful: And this is a surprise how?

Read Karl Marx, the liberal's version of Thomas Jefferson, if you really want to know what they think.

Actual Marxists do not like liberals: How to Combat Liberalism

The only differences between Communism and socialism (or Progressivism or liberalism or Social Democrat-ism, or whatever they're calling it this week) are: (1) the pace of implementation, and (2) the willingness of its proponents to understand or discuss their true beliefs.


So, the only difference between Republicans and racist pedophile mass murderering nose-pickers is the color of their socks?
 
2014-07-14 02:29:35 PM  
I would say it's the lower level infrastructure and backbone providers like L3, Verizon, Sprint etc and the corresponding big iron network gear guys like Cisco, Juniper and others that took what the NSF funded and built something worthwhile. Before those guys really ran with it the Internet was mostly just an academic document exchange wire service. Google and Amazon built huge profitable businesses on top of the Internet but the real power/control is with the fiber in the ground and the routers connecting them.

I don't follow the left's logic very well but if a lefty wanted to nationalize something RE: what the public funded belongs to the gov. you'd think it would be the backbone providers.
 
2014-07-14 02:32:24 PM  

yakmans_dad: Phinn: Repo Man: 1derful: And this is a surprise how?

Read Karl Marx, the liberal's version of Thomas Jefferson, if you really want to know what they think.

Actual Marxists do not like liberals: How to Combat Liberalism

The only differences between Communism and socialism (or Progressivism or liberalism or Social Democrat-ism, or whatever they're calling it this week) are: (1) the pace of implementation, and (2) the willingness of its proponents to understand or discuss their true beliefs.

So, the only difference between Republicans and racist pedophile mass murderering nose-pickers is the color of their socks?


Pretty much, yeah. But I staunchly hold dear, to my last breath, the self-evident truth that the color of one's socks remains a matter of personal choice.

/Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.
 
2014-07-14 02:37:40 PM  

Cletus C.: INeedAName: smashyou: What the hell is this article? I'm one of those super-libby libs, and if some farktard started with this shiat in my presence I'd whack him upside the head for stoopid. Is this just an elaborate troll/strawman by the secret-conservative Salon?

Author makes sense about how broadband internet ought to be a public utility, but that is a settled matter among non-idiots last I checked. How he makes the stretch from "Google uses the internet" to "Nationalization of private companies because children" is beyond me.

/I'm a hoar for troll bait, what can I say

The difference between Cons and Libs - when a Lib says something, we don't mind disagreeing.

Just one of the many things that makes you superior. And smug.


That and we never voted for Bush twice.
 
2014-07-14 02:38:07 PM  

themindiswatching: subby once again confuses some random crackpot on Salon with the liberals that don't live in his head.


Yep, I think subby is unaware that Liberals allow each other to have different opinions as opposed how Wingers expect each other to parrot the newest "Talking Points".

I think because the concept of respectfully listening to someone they disagree with is alien to most of them.
 
2014-07-14 02:39:22 PM  
How come Republicans can't be happy unless there's a straw man farking them in the ass?
 
2014-07-14 02:41:24 PM  

KawaiiNot: themindiswatching: subby once again confuses some random crackpot on Salon with the liberals that don't live in his head.

Yep, I think subby is unaware that Liberals allow each other to have different opinions as opposed how Wingers expect each other to parrot the newest "Talking Points".

I think because the concept of respectfully listening to someone they disagree with is alien to most of them.


I think subby doesn't have a political agenda, but knows trolly headlines get greenlit.
 
2014-07-14 02:44:59 PM  

enry: EvilEgg: I support this and all far left guys, if only to show Americans what a real far left position is, so we can move the conversation back towards the middle.

Bernie Sanders for president: you wanna see what an actual Socialist would do?


Yes please, I would like that.
 
2014-07-14 02:45:02 PM  

cig-mkr: FormlessOne: cig-mkr: The government can't even keep backup e-mails at the IRS, and you want them to regulate the internet?

Yes. How hard is that to understand? It's time to rein in the Wild West.

The government already has enough to "reign in" right now, like the national budget, immigration, social security and the list goes on. BTW if you search "How many government agencies are there?" no one can give you an exact number.
 Besides that, suppose the gov did take over the internet, how long do you think it would take for them to outlaw porn sites ?


How long did it take them to shut down the 1-900-IMA-SLUT phone-sex lines?
 
2014-07-14 02:48:32 PM  
I love that the only point conservatives can win on is one that they ascribe to 'libs'  and the vast majority of liberals totally disagree with.
 
2014-07-14 02:53:03 PM  

Som Tervo: I love that the only point conservatives can win on is one that they ascribe to 'libs' and the vast majority of liberals totally disagree with.


And *I* love how some Farkers thinks that what some moron posting on the internet says to get clicks is indicative of the political opinions of half the country, and you think the responses to that idiot on Fark are indicative of the political opinions of another half of the country.
 
2014-07-14 02:55:01 PM  
i don't know anybody who has ever said internet website-based companies should be nationalized

now on the flip side we're creeping towards third-world status internet infrastructure thanks to regional monopolies, if we can't break those monopolies to encourage that which conservatives "love" (free market capitalism, and i put "love" because history says conservatives love enabling monopolies as much as discouraging monopolies - whatever hands out more free money is good apparently) - then maybe we should consider legislating the internet in this country, and if that doesn't work then straight-up nationalize it

a race to the bottom is not acceptable, we're not a banana republic
 
2014-07-14 02:55:23 PM  

qorkfiend: cig-mkr: FormlessOne: cig-mkr: The government can't even keep backup e-mails at the IRS, and you want them to regulate the internet?

Yes. How hard is that to understand? It's time to rein in the Wild West.

The government already has enough to "reign in" right now, like the national budget, immigration, social security and the list goes on. BTW if you search "How many government agencies are there?" no one can give you an exact number.
 Besides that, suppose the gov did take over the internet, how long do you think it would take for them to outlaw porn sites ?

Just like porn can't be delivered through the US Post Office, right?


People still get porn through the mail ? Maybe toys, but videos ?
 
2014-07-14 02:59:41 PM  

cig-mkr: qorkfiend: cig-mkr: FormlessOne: cig-mkr: The government can't even keep backup e-mails at the IRS, and you want them to regulate the internet?

Yes. How hard is that to understand? It's time to rein in the Wild West.

The government already has enough to "reign in" right now, like the national budget, immigration, social security and the list goes on. BTW if you search "How many government agencies are there?" no one can give you an exact number.
 Besides that, suppose the gov did take over the internet, how long do you think it would take for them to outlaw porn sites ?

Just like porn can't be delivered through the US Post Office, right?

People still get porn through the mail ? Maybe toys, but videos ?


I assume there are still some people who get hardcopy versions of Playboy or Hustler. In any case, my point is that (contrary to your supposition) government involvement does not automatically mean no porn.

In fact, the easiest way to ensure access to porn is get the government involved. The government cannot censor your mail, but a private mail carrier could.
 
2014-07-14 03:01:05 PM  
Regulating the ISP and infrastructure maybe but the content providers? I haven't heard that before.
Would be like government owning all the cars but not the road?
 
2014-07-14 03:02:52 PM  

umad: themindiswatching: subby once again confuses some random crackpot on Salon with the liberals that don't live in his head.

If the crackpots on the right represent everyone on the right, then this motherfarker can represent all of you. Own it.


The crackpots on the left get called idiots in FARK threads. The crackpots on the right get elected to the Senate.
 
2014-07-14 03:05:59 PM  

AdamK: i don't know anybody who has ever said internet website-based companies should be nationalized

now on the flip side we're creeping towards third-world status internet infrastructure thanks to regional monopolies, if we can't break those monopolies to encourage that which conservatives "love" (free market capitalism, and i put "love" because history says conservatives love enabling monopolies as much as discouraging monopolies - whatever hands out more free money is good apparently) - then maybe we should consider legislating the internet in this country, and if that doesn't work then straight-up nationalize it

a race to the bottom is not acceptable, we're not a banana republic


Government created local cable monopolies. The only thing that is needed to "break" them is for the government to stop sponsoring and protecting them, i.e., to make those markets more free.
 
2014-07-14 03:06:27 PM  

jst3p: Vlad_the_Inaner: jst3p: mjbok: Headso: Jim_Callahan: The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.

lol

The original statement wasn't mine, but I don't see how it is LOL worthy.  Google, as a company, probably had more to do with shaping the current internet than any other publicly known company.  Google wouldn't have existed without the internet, but Google is now a verb for a reason.

The part in bold is what makes it lol worthy.

What if he had said "The Yellow Pages would not have existed without the telephone utilities"? Still LOL?

You missed the point.


Whose?

The guy you quoted  basically said that Google owes more to the existence of the internet than the internet owes to the existence of Google .  The former is, of course a pre-condtion, because without some kind of internet, Google wouldn't work.  But the latter statement is not null either.  I'm sure internet infrastructure has been laid down because people wanted access to Google (and the rest)  from wherever.   So where is the LOL worthiness again?
 
2014-07-14 03:13:06 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: I'm sure internet infrastructure has been laid down because people wanted access to Google (and the rest)  from wherever.


That's not analogous to saying that Google would exist without the Internet.
 
2014-07-14 03:21:13 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Yes, because it's the most popular search engine. Big farking deal. That's like saying the modern car owes its existence to Goodyear tire company to a far greater degree than the opposite. It's just purely irrational.


That's not an idea wholly without merit either.  There's a feedback effect there too, mediated by the roads.  I would say that modern autos are optimized for travel on paved macadam type roads, and those macadam roads were created because of use by automobiles.  Don't recall if Goodyear invented the rubber,tire and later, the pneumatic tire.  But say for argument they did and had a Google level monopolistic lock on the tire market.  (Or just substitute"pneumatic" for "Goodyear" in your statement. Then your statement would have a measure of truth.
 
2014-07-14 03:23:47 PM  
Amazon's war on publishers like Hachette

This disturbs me.
 
2014-07-14 03:31:30 PM  

qorkfiend: Vlad_the_Inaner: I'm sure internet infrastructure has been laid down because people wanted access to Google (and the rest)  from wherever.

That's not analogous to saying that Google would exist without the Internet.


So I guess it depends on how binary your thinking is. Is the 'internet' just any TCP/IP network. Is the 'modern internet' in existence if it stayed the plain old  ARPAnet.  Limited to military, defense contractors and research insitutuions.  I'd say no, that the modern internet coincided with Eternal September..  But Google could have lived on the old ARPAnet without any technical problems at all.  Yahoo certainly did..
 
2014-07-14 03:33:02 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: qorkfiend: Vlad_the_Inaner: I'm sure internet infrastructure has been laid down because people wanted access to Google (and the rest)  from wherever.

That's not analogous to saying that Google would exist without the Internet.

So I guess it depends on how binary your thinking is. Is the 'internet' just any TCP/IP network. Is the 'modern internet' in existence if it stayed the plain old  ARPAnet.  Limited to military, defense contractors and research insitutuions.  I'd say no, that the modern internet coincided with Eternal September..  But Google could have lived on the old ARPAnet without any technical problems at all.  Yahoo certainly did..


No, I don't think it changes anything at all. If the Internet, or ARPAnet, or whatever you want to call it, had not been invented, Google would not exist. That's not really debatable.
 
2014-07-14 03:38:02 PM  

Som Tervo: I love that the only point conservatives can win on is one that they ascribe to 'libs'  and the vast majority of liberals totally disagree with.


I love that liberals get upset about being stereotyped and show their moral high ground by stereotyping conservatives.

/the irony in this thread is farking hilarious
 
2014-07-14 03:38:56 PM  

AdamK: i don't know anybody who has ever said internet website-based companies should be nationalized


Well if you had read the article you would know at least one:
Meet Richard (RJ) Eskow.
"Richard (RJ) Eskow is a writer and policy analyst. He is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future and is host and managing editor of The Zero Hour on We Act Radio."
 
2014-07-14 03:42:22 PM  

umad: Som Tervo: I love that the only point conservatives can win on is one that they ascribe to 'libs'  and the vast majority of liberals totally disagree with.

I love that liberals get upset about being stereotyped and show their moral high ground by stereotyping conservatives.

/the irony in this thread is farking hilarious


It's not stereotyping, it's an observation of the conservatives we interact with every day on this very site.
 
2014-07-14 03:44:58 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: AdamK: i don't know anybody who has ever said internet website-based companies should be nationalized

Well if you had read the article you would know at least one:
Meet Richard (RJ) Eskow.
"Richard (RJ) Eskow is a writer and policy analyst. He is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future and is host and managing editor of The Zero Hour on We Act Radio."


so it's a person's opinion, not a national ideology
 
2014-07-14 03:45:16 PM  

red5ish: Amazon's war on publishers like Hachette

This disturbs me.


Like, I said earlier it shouldn't. Hatchette is run by a greedy bunch of assmonkeys who want ensure that you won't save a dime buying an e-book over a physical copy. They conspired to fix e-book prices. It is a matter of public record. I personally find it disgusting that the media is buying into their sob story about being the poor victim here because they want to create a David vs. Goliath narrative when there really isn't one. It's more of a story of a bunch of dirty businessmen finally getting their well-deserved ass-farking.
 
2014-07-14 03:48:28 PM  

umad: I love that liberals get upset


You want to believe that liberals are "upset" even when they aren't. That makes you seem weird, not them.
 
2014-07-14 03:49:39 PM  

HeartBurnKid: umad: Som Tervo: I love that the only point conservatives can win on is one that they ascribe to 'libs'  and the vast majority of liberals totally disagree with.

I love that liberals get upset about being stereotyped and show their moral high ground by stereotyping conservatives.

/the irony in this thread is farking hilarious

It's not stereotyping, it's an observation of the conservatives we interact with every day on this very site.


That you then apply to all conservatives. Otherwise known as stereotyping. I guess those of us who are for gay marriage, against the war on drugs, against the war on terror etc. etc. around here don't really exist. In fact, this post is typing itself.
 
2014-07-14 03:52:33 PM  

umad: I love that liberals get upset about being stereotyped and show their moral high ground by stereotyping conservatives.


It would help if the stereotype was partially based in reality.

"Liberals love LED light bulbs!" Sure, that one's pretty accurate.
"Liberals hate gas-guzzling cars!" Yeah, that one has merit.
"Liberals want to nationalize Google and Amazon!" Uh...where the hell did THAT come from?
 
2014-07-14 03:55:24 PM  

umad: HeartBurnKid: umad: Som Tervo: I love that the only point conservatives can win on is one that they ascribe to 'libs'  and the vast majority of liberals totally disagree with.

I love that liberals get upset about being stereotyped and show their moral high ground by stereotyping conservatives.

/the irony in this thread is farking hilarious

It's not stereotyping, it's an observation of the conservatives we interact with every day on this very site.

That you then apply to all conservatives. Otherwise known as stereotyping. I guess those of us who are for gay marriage, against the war on drugs, against the war on terror etc. etc. around here don't really exist. In fact, this post is typing itself.


Why do you support a political party that is against everything you claim you're in favor of?
 
2014-07-14 03:55:33 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Uh...where the hell did THAT come from?


According to the thread, it came from GOP HQ.
 
2014-07-14 03:57:09 PM  

qorkfiend: umad: HeartBurnKid: umad: Som Tervo: I love that the only point conservatives can win on is one that they ascribe to 'libs'  and the vast majority of liberals totally disagree with.

I love that liberals get upset about being stereotyped and show their moral high ground by stereotyping conservatives.

/the irony in this thread is farking hilarious

It's not stereotyping, it's an observation of the conservatives we interact with every day on this very site.

That you then apply to all conservatives. Otherwise known as stereotyping. I guess those of us who are for gay marriage, against the war on drugs, against the war on terror etc. etc. around here don't really exist. In fact, this post is typing itself.

Why do you support a political party that is against everything you claim you're in favor of?


I don't support them. I don't support the other party either, as they are against even more things that I am (and fark you for insinuating otherwise) in favor of.
 
2014-07-14 04:08:25 PM  

umad: qorkfiend: umad: HeartBurnKid: umad: Som Tervo: I love that the only point conservatives can win on is one that they ascribe to 'libs'  and the vast majority of liberals totally disagree with.

I love that liberals get upset about being stereotyped and show their moral high ground by stereotyping conservatives.

/the irony in this thread is farking hilarious

It's not stereotyping, it's an observation of the conservatives we interact with every day on this very site.

That you then apply to all conservatives. Otherwise known as stereotyping. I guess those of us who are for gay marriage, against the war on drugs, against the war on terror etc. etc. around here don't really exist. In fact, this post is typing itself.

Why do you support a political party that is against everything you claim you're in favor of?

I don't support them. I don't support the other party either, as they are against even more things that I am (and fark you for insinuating otherwise) in favor of.


Ah, yes. "Both sides are bad", but "fark you if you disagree" is a new one.
 
2014-07-14 04:08:38 PM  

Phinn: AdamK: i don't know anybody who has ever said internet website-based companies should be nationalized

now on the flip side we're creeping towards third-world status internet infrastructure thanks to regional monopolies, if we can't break those monopolies to encourage that which conservatives "love" (free market capitalism, and i put "love" because history says conservatives love enabling monopolies as much as discouraging monopolies - whatever hands out more free money is good apparently) - then maybe we should consider legislating the internet in this country, and if that doesn't work then straight-up nationalize it

a race to the bottom is not acceptable, we're not a banana republic

Government created local cable monopolies. The only thing that is needed to "break" them is for the government to stop sponsoring and protecting them, i.e., to make those markets more free.


They would continue to be monopolies even without government sponsorship. There's too much infrastructure in place to allow you and your buddy to go down to the bank, get a small business loan, and seriously have a chance at dislodging Comcast, AT&T or any other backbone provider in a reasonable time scale. Anti-trust litigation would need to be pursued to seriously affect the current state of internet service.

Realistically it makes no sense for us to try and treat ISPs like a capitalistic market, it just won't work. Instead we should just place it under the control of the Post Office and have the Army start laying fibre and putting up cell towers all over the country (as training for when we have to do the same thing after we destroy a country).
 
2014-07-14 04:13:49 PM  

qorkfiend: umad: qorkfiend: umad: HeartBurnKid: umad: Som Tervo: I love that the only point conservatives can win on is one that they ascribe to 'libs'  and the vast majority of liberals totally disagree with.

I love that liberals get upset about being stereotyped and show their moral high ground by stereotyping conservatives.

/the irony in this thread is farking hilarious

It's not stereotyping, it's an observation of the conservatives we interact with every day on this very site.

That you then apply to all conservatives. Otherwise known as stereotyping. I guess those of us who are for gay marriage, against the war on drugs, against the war on terror etc. etc. around here don't really exist. In fact, this post is typing itself.

Why do you support a political party that is against everything you claim you're in favor of?

I don't support them. I don't support the other party either, as they are against even more things that I am (and fark you for insinuating otherwise) in favor of.

Ah, yes. "Both sides are bad", but "fark you if you disagree" is a new one.


Sure it's a common joke that third parties don't stand a chance, but it should only be a joke.  Posts like this aren't helping.  Yes, the Republicans and Democrats are bad, but they are not "both sides".  If we stopped presenting a false dichotomy, maybe we'd have a chance of getting a more sane party or candidates in office.  (note: "maybe")
 
2014-07-14 04:27:29 PM  

jst3p: Jim_Callahan: jst3p: The part in bold is what makes it lol worthy.

I know some of y'all aren't out of high school yet and think that the internet has always been exactly what it is now, but those of us in our late 20s plus remember having to use it before the advent of competent search engine indexing and referencing, and can tell you it ain't even remotely similar.

Imagine if the best way to find something was to ask people about it more or less at random on FARK, with no way to even double-check the replies to tell if you're being trolled... except that the only way you'd even have access to something THAT good was if someone literally told you about it, with their mouth, in real life, or if you saw the URL on a TV ad and happened to memorize it with all the random prefixes and suffixes included.  Write down a couple wrong letters or miss a sub-page on a website without a default index page (there were a lot of those) and you'd essentially never find what you were looking for even with a direct address reference.

Google is pretty much what took 'hey, look at this useless novelty where you can send digital data over the phone' and turned it into the actual information age.

Henry Ford didn't make the first self-powered wheeled vehicle, either, but he did essentially invent automobiles.

I am 39 and work in IT. I appreciate all the google has accomplished. That being said the statement " The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite." is still a dumb statement. Google is an impossibility without the internet, the reverse is not true.


We'd all be Yahooing! without Google and nothing would be much different. Maybe our privacy would be more secure.
 
2014-07-14 04:28:01 PM  

qorkfiend: Vlad_the_Inaner: qorkfiend: Vlad_the_Inaner: I'm sure internet infrastructure has been laid down because people wanted access to Google (and the rest)  from wherever.

That's not analogous to saying that Google would exist without the Internet.

So I guess it depends on how binary your thinking is. Is the 'internet' just any TCP/IP network. Is the 'modern internet' in existence if it stayed the plain old  ARPAnet.  Limited to military, defense contractors and research insitutuions.  I'd say no, that the modern internet coincided with Eternal September..  But Google could have lived on the old ARPAnet without any technical problems at all.  Yahoo certainly did..

No, I don't think it changes anything at all. If the Internet, or ARPAnet, or whatever you want to call it, had not been invented, Google would not exist. That's not really debatable.


So lets see if I'm understanding you correctly, Jim Callahan'd original statement of "modern internet" includes every TCP/IP  network ever deployed, and there was nothing pre-"modern internet" that could have technically carried Google traffic.

If so, that's a pretty un-nuanced interpretation of the phrase 'modern internet', when Jim Callahan was obviously talking about the evolution of the Internet over time.  But whatever, LOL away if you want.
 
2014-07-14 04:33:38 PM  
150 years ago people had the same argument about whether roads should be provided by the government. 30 years ago required the telephone network to subject itself to strict regulation not applied to other businesses. Whether or not you think it's a good idea in this case the concept that we might transition a widely-used service in a powerful position in our economy from private ownership to public, or from a normal business to a more strictly regulated one is neither new or absurd.
 
2014-07-14 04:37:39 PM  

MindStalker: Nobody (that was anybody) wanted Microsoft broken up or owned by the government. People were just saying that they needed more oversight and forced to stop their arguably illegal bundling of products.


Well, nobody apart from the presiding judge who ordered them to be broken up, before the order was overturned on appeal, and the Department of Justice, which sought that remedy. But apart from that, nobody that was anybody.

Nor is this without precedent: the DoJ had previously sought to break up IBM, and the government succeeded in dismantling AT&T.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
 
2014-07-14 04:42:30 PM  

umad: qorkfiend: umad: HeartBurnKid: umad: Som Tervo: I love that the only point conservatives can win on is one that they ascribe to 'libs'  and the vast majority of liberals totally disagree with.

I love that liberals get upset about being stereotyped and show their moral high ground by stereotyping conservatives.

/the irony in this thread is farking hilarious

It's not stereotyping, it's an observation of the conservatives we interact with every day on this very site.

That you then apply to all conservatives. Otherwise known as stereotyping. I guess those of us who are for gay marriage, against the war on drugs, against the war on terror etc. etc. around here don't really exist. In fact, this post is typing itself.

Why do you support a political party that is against everything you claim you're in favor of?

I don't support them. I don't support the other party either, as they are against even more things that I am (and fark you for insinuating otherwise) in favor of.


Bullshiat.
 
2014-07-14 04:45:30 PM  
Liberals sure do get their dander up when someone says "liberal."
 
2014-07-14 04:50:11 PM  

AdamK: so it's a person's opinion, not a national ideology


You will find that I said precisely that upthread.

Friction8r: Liberals sure do get their dander up when someone says "liberal."


A spade rarely likes to be called a spade :)
 
2014-07-14 04:59:36 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Bullshiat


What is?
 
2014-07-14 05:03:44 PM  

rwdavis: Phinn: AdamK: i don't know anybody who has ever said internet website-based companies should be nationalized

now on the flip side we're creeping towards third-world status internet infrastructure thanks to regional monopolies, if we can't break those monopolies to encourage that which conservatives "love" (free market capitalism, and i put "love" because history says conservatives love enabling monopolies as much as discouraging monopolies - whatever hands out more free money is good apparently) - then maybe we should consider legislating the internet in this country, and if that doesn't work then straight-up nationalize it

a race to the bottom is not acceptable, we're not a banana republic

Government created local cable monopolies. The only thing that is needed to "break" them is for the government to stop sponsoring and protecting them, i.e., to make those markets more free.

They would continue to be monopolies even without government sponsorship. There's too much infrastructure in place to allow you and your buddy to go down to the bank, get a small business loan, and seriously have a chance at dislodging Comcast, AT&T or any other backbone provider in a reasonable time scale. Anti-trust litigation would need to be pursued to seriously affect the current state of internet service.

Realistically it makes no sense for us to try and treat ISPs like a capitalistic market, it just won't work. Instead we should just place it under the control of the Post Office and have the Army start laying fibre and putting up cell towers all over the country (as training for when we have to do the same thing after we destroy a country).


This is why you nationalize the cables and not the providers (think Chattanooga, or Britain).
 
2014-07-14 05:33:55 PM  

Ambivalence: I think the internet should, itself, be classified as a public utility.



Doesn't that open the door to web censorship, in the same way pubic airwaves are censored by the FCC?
 
2014-07-14 05:38:00 PM  

Friction8r: Liberals sure do get their dander up when someone says "liberal."


And they had to flee to the word liberal once Progressives were caught supporting things like euthanasia, forced sterilization, and a fondness of Hitler. Lefty academia ruined the word for them.
 
2014-07-14 05:48:00 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Friction8r: Liberals sure do get their dander up when someone says "liberal."

And they had to flee to the word liberal once Progressives were caught supporting things like euthanasia, forced sterilization, and a fondness of Hitler. Lefty academia ruined the word for them.


HA HA! You listen to Glenn Beck!
 
2014-07-14 05:54:33 PM  

umad: HeartBurnKid: Bullshiat

What is?


The idea that you don't support Republicans.  You're a classic Fark Independent™.
 
2014-07-14 06:01:10 PM  

HeartBurnKid: umad: HeartBurnKid: Bullshiat

What is?

The idea that you don't support Republicans.  You're a classic Fark Independent™.


Then I have a funny way of showing it as I have never voted for one of their candidates.
 
2014-07-14 06:04:21 PM  
Fark Troll Logic: The Politics Tab doesn't smell bad enough - let's stink up the Geek Tab with our shiat, too!
 
2014-07-14 06:19:09 PM  
It would be much smarter to turn them into non profit entities, and turn their massive revenue generation systems into free money machines for infrastructure and social welfare projects.
 
2014-07-14 06:25:40 PM  

fluffy2097: It would be much smarter to turn them into non profit entities, and turn their massive revenue generation systems into free money machines for infrastructure and social welfare projects.


Dude, you're, like, a farking GENIUS!! when it comes to spending other people's money.
 
2014-07-14 06:36:39 PM  

umad: HeartBurnKid: umad: HeartBurnKid: Bullshiat

What is?

The idea that you don't support Republicans.  You're a classic Fark Independent™.

Then I have a funny way of showing it as I have never voted for one of their candidates.


HeartBurnKid: Bullshiat.

 
2014-07-14 06:39:33 PM  

Phinn: Dude, you're, like, a farking GENIUS!! when it comes to spending other people's money.


It's hardly their money.

It's simply money that has appeared out of thin air because we decide that when you sit on a stack of cash large enough to run a small nation and keep it in a bank, it should become more valuable over time because reasons.
 
2014-07-14 06:43:48 PM  

HeartBurnKid: umad: HeartBurnKid: umad: HeartBurnKid: Bullshiat

What is?

The idea that you don't support Republicans.  You're a classic Fark Independent™.

Then I have a funny way of showing it as I have never voted for one of their candidates.

HeartBurnKid: Bullshiat.


I don't care if you believe me. But thanks for proving my point for me. You aren't special. There are a ton of conservatives that don't follow the party line too, whether you choose to believe in them or not. That you are so adamant that they don't exist just so happens to be the exact farking thing I accused you idiots of and you walked right into it and backed me up. Hilarious.
 
2014-07-14 06:47:34 PM  

umad: HeartBurnKid: umad: HeartBurnKid: umad: HeartBurnKid: Bullshiat

What is?

The idea that you don't support Republicans.  You're a classic Fark Independent™.

Then I have a funny way of showing it as I have never voted for one of their candidates.

HeartBurnKid: Bullshiat.

I don't care if you believe me. But thanks for proving my point for me. You aren't special. There are a ton of conservatives that don't follow the party line too, whether you choose to believe in them or not. That you are so adamant that they don't exist just so happens to be the exact farking thing I accused you idiots of and you walked right into it and backed me up. Hilarious.


I didn't say they don't exist.  I said you're not one of them.  Because I read your posts, and I know you.  You're a classic Fark Independent™.
 
2014-07-14 06:51:40 PM  

HeartBurnKid: umad: HeartBurnKid: umad: HeartBurnKid: umad: HeartBurnKid: Bullshiat

What is?

The idea that you don't support Republicans.  You're a classic Fark Independent™.

Then I have a funny way of showing it as I have never voted for one of their candidates.

HeartBurnKid: Bullshiat.

I don't care if you believe me. But thanks for proving my point for me. You aren't special. There are a ton of conservatives that don't follow the party line too, whether you choose to believe in them or not. That you are so adamant that they don't exist just so happens to be the exact farking thing I accused you idiots of and you walked right into it and backed me up. Hilarious.

I didn't say they don't exist.  I said you're not one of them.  Because I read your posts, and I know you.  You're a classic Fark Independent™.


Bullshiat
 
2014-07-14 06:54:55 PM  
I hope he gets fired for writing that.
 
2014-07-14 06:55:19 PM  

umad: HeartBurnKid: umad: HeartBurnKid: umad: HeartBurnKid: umad: HeartBurnKid: Bullshiat

What is?

The idea that you don't support Republicans.  You're a classic Fark Independent™.

Then I have a funny way of showing it as I have never voted for one of their candidates.

HeartBurnKid: Bullshiat.

I don't care if you believe me. But thanks for proving my point for me. You aren't special. There are a ton of conservatives that don't follow the party line too, whether you choose to believe in them or not. That you are so adamant that they don't exist just so happens to be the exact farking thing I accused you idiots of and you walked right into it and backed me up. Hilarious.

I didn't say they don't exist.  I said you're not one of them.  Because I read your posts, and I know you.  You're a classic Fark Independent™.

Bullshiat


No, I'm pretty confident in that one.  All I've ever seen you do is talk trash and spread lies about Democrats and liberals.  If you've ever had a single bad thing to say about a Republican, or a single good thing to say about a Democrat or a liberal, I missed it completely.
 
2014-07-14 07:18:14 PM  

DubyaHater: It's part of King Obama's plan.  He's already nationalized healthcare, sissified the military, and taxed us beyond our means.  Why not start nationalizing private enterprise?  It's the next logical step.


Actually, he didn't nationalize healthcare.  If he had, we would have probably gotten a much better system.  What we got is a system that pays companies to provide services, which is going to be a mess in light of Citizens United.
 
2014-07-14 07:36:10 PM  
Who is so damned stupid they don't know the difference between a governmentally regulated monopoly and a nationalized industry?
 
2014-07-14 07:37:01 PM  

Swampmaster: PS:  Don't tell Salon about the long lease fiber all over the country, plus under sea cable companies, nor about all those pesky fereniers; who might have a thing to say about the US Government owning their intra-tubez...
PSS: I betcha this Salon author has to pay comcast or AT&T a monthly cable/dsl bill; don't ja know.
PSSS: Free Internet at the Library, well, until the County closes down all the libraries 'cause they ran out of tax dollars to spend on "Free"... ouch.
PSSSS: You keep using that word 'FREE'; I don't think it means what you think it means...


I think you mean:
PS
PSS or PPS
PPPS
PPPPS

"Sometimes, when additional points are made after the Boobiesscript, abbreviations such as PSS (post-super-scriptum), PPS (postquam-post-scriptum) and PPPS (post-post-post-scriptum, and so on,)..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postscript
 
2014-07-14 07:38:58 PM  

fluffy2097: Phinn: Dude, you're, like, a farking GENIUS!! when it comes to spending other people's money.

It's hardly their money.

It's simply money that has appeared out of thin air because we decide that when you sit on a stack of cash large enough to run a small nation and keep it in a bank, it should become more valuable over time because reasons.


Actually it is their money, since it is in their name at the bank.

And it becomes valuable over time due to interest. You see, banks take your deposit and use that to lend out money, and in return, give you part of the interest they earn from lending it out. It's not exactly "reasons".
 
2014-07-14 08:36:21 PM  

xkillyourfacex: Quantumbunny: both in small towns like Santa Fe and in larger ones like Denver

Where do you live that Santa Fe is a small town and Denver is a large town? Here in rural south central Colorado we call both Santa Fe and Denver "big cities".


Born in Denver, currently living in Santa Fe. To me 70k people is a small town. I should probably have called Denver a large city, but either way. Basically I was trying to get at the point that in all towns/cities affected by the moving in of a Barnes and Noble or a Borders... a Blockbuster... even Lowe's, Home Depot, etc... They are looking at profitability. Even in the hugely unlikely scenario a little town of 4000 has a bookstore or two to be displaced, it is unlikely the cost benefit would have looked good to a larger chain. And in all of those towns/cities I've seen, there are still mom and pop bookstores.

Frankly towns under the size of about 10 or 20 grand that don't have at least their own post office, a few gas stations, grocery store, a distribution port of some kind (airport, harbor, train depot)... These are unattractive as business options to chains. And not to sound like an ass, but frankly are too insignificant to be included in these kinds of discussions.

I'd honestly imagine outside of Netflix's physical mailing and Amazon shipping (likely not prime available) that policies of large companies and possibly being displaced by chains is just not really relevant.
 
2014-07-14 08:44:11 PM  

HoratioGates: Boobiesscript


Much more popular than javascript!

I love all these young libertarian Aspergers-sufferers all over the web who post their "liberal logic" and "feminist logic" strawmen. Yes, you are truly the XXLogic420MasterXX and you're definitely not just oversimplifying or cherry-picking extreme examples to make yourself feel smart.

This rant might not really be all that relevant to this thread. But I don't care; I'm cranky.
 
2014-07-14 08:52:23 PM  

machoprogrammer: fluffy2097: Phinn: Dude, you're, like, a farking GENIUS!! when it comes to spending other people's money.

It's hardly their money.

It's simply money that has appeared out of thin air because we decide that when you sit on a stack of cash large enough to run a small nation and keep it in a bank, it should become more valuable over time because reasons.

Actually it is their money, since it is in their name at the bank.

And it becomes valuable over time due to interest. You see, banks take your deposit and use that to lend out money, and in return, give you part of the interest they earn from lending it out. It's not exactly "reasons".


And where do people put money they have just borrowed?

In the bank...

And what does the bank do?

Lend it out again (well 90% of it)

can you see how it works now?

How they start with all the money in the first place, then they lend it out and keep doing that until they have lent out the same money so many times that they can make more in profit every year than the actual amount of real money in the world...

Then you just call in a few debts and you can cause a crash meaning that, as you have all the real money in the world, you can just buy whatever becomes really cheap, like gold or houses.

Quite incredible really, you have to hand it to them.
 
2014-07-14 10:16:07 PM  
lib·er·al
ˈlib(ə)rəl

adjective
1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
* favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
* (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.

In what fool's dictionary is nationalizing a private business "liberal"?
 
2014-07-14 10:54:31 PM  

Frederf: In what fool's dictionary is nationalizing a private business "liberal"?


Ever since the late-19th century when leftists co-opted the word.
 
2014-07-14 10:58:28 PM  
Subby, I don't blame you for every silly thing Fox News says, so no fair blaming me when Salon or Jezebel decides to publish a crazy person to gain hits.
 
2014-07-14 11:07:53 PM  

dready zim: And where do people put money they have just borrowed?

In the bank...

And what does the bank do?

Lend it out again (well 90% of it)

can you see how it works now?

How they start with all the money in the first place, then they lend it out and keep doing that until they have lent out the same money so many times that they can make more in profit every year than the actual amount of real money in the world...

Then you just call in a few debts and you can cause a crash meaning that, as you have all the real money in the world, you can just buy whatever becomes really cheap, like gold or houses.

Quite incredible really, you have to hand it to them.


Banks can't call in debt if it isn't in the contract of the loan.

And unless you are an idiot, you use a FDIC insured bank, so you don't lose your deposits if it does crash.

And the legitimacey of banks isn't the point of his post, just his saying that Google, FB, etc deposits grow because "reasons", which is not true at all if you have the least bit of financial knowledge
 
2014-07-14 11:14:56 PM  

jst3p: mjbok: Headso: Jim_Callahan: The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.

lol

The original statement wasn't mine, but I don't see how it is LOL worthy.  Google, as a company, probably had more to do with shaping the current internet than any other publicly known company.  Google wouldn't have existed without the internet, but Google is now a verb for a reason.

The part in bold is what makes it lol worthy.



"...Windows wouldn't have existed without desktop computers, but 'Windows' refers to something other than glass panes for a reason."

Yeah, that logic's completely laughable.
 
2014-07-14 11:36:41 PM  

MindStalker: damageddude: It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly

Nobody (that was anybody) wanted Microsoft broken up or owned by the government. People were just saying that they needed more oversight and forced to stop their arguably illegal bundling of products.


How dare they bundle a browser with an operating system!  Instead they should have no browser at all and we can use our AOL cds to install a browser.
 
2014-07-14 11:39:55 PM  
www.dvd-covers.org

Yeah but remember how bad this was?
 
2014-07-15 02:56:00 AM  

spamdog: [www.dvd-covers.org image 850x571]

Yeah but remember how bad this was?


That critic quote... at the top. It sounds familiar...

www.dvd-covers.org

Is that the stock quote they always give for bad movies? They pay a critic to drop "An [adjective] thrill ride!" deuce on the box? How prevalent is that quote? Can we find other movies with it?
 
2014-07-15 10:45:03 AM  

spamdog: HoratioGates: Boobiesscript


Much more popular than javascript!

I love all these young libertarian Aspergers-sufferers all over the web who post their "liberal logic" and "feminist logic" strawmen. Yes, you are truly the XXLogic420MasterXX and you're definitely not just oversimplifying or cherry-picking extreme examples to make yourself feel smart.

This rant might not really be all that relevant to this thread. But I don't care; I'm cranky.


More to the point, I'm not really sure how your post is relevant to my post since I'm not a libertarian (or an Aspergers sufferer).  I'm a liberal (although I think this idea is daffy) and pro-feminist.
 
Displayed 280 of 280 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report