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 280
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

6455 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 280 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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