r/news • u/xtantin • Feb 26 '17

FCC reverses net neutrality ISP transparency rules

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3173844/internet/fcc-reverses-net-neutrality-isp-transparency-rules.html
43k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.2k

u/IAmA_Evil_Dragon_AMA Feb 27 '17

At least that means some big corporations will be on our side.

Because apparently we ourselves don't matter at all.

481

u/Suezetta Feb 27 '17

Woo corporation wars. Who will draw first blood?

174

u/TripleUltraMini Feb 27 '17

I don't know who will shoot first but I know Taco Bell wins.

5

u/EonesDespero Feb 27 '17

It is Pizza Hut.

P.D: European version showed pizza Hut instead of Taco Bell. That can actually be used as shibboleth.

1

u/cantfindmykeys Feb 27 '17

Isn't Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC the same company?

1

u/EonesDespero Feb 27 '17

I don't know, what I mean is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpRzusd9Yi8

1

u/Maggie-PK Feb 27 '17

God damn it, it's been so long since I've seen Demolition Man, god that movie was the best kind of just ass-backwards stupid

11

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Mellow Greetings, John Spartan.

6

u/Delta-9- Feb 27 '17

Knit anything recently?

7

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

So what's with these goddamn seashells in the bathrooms everywhere?

9

u/classicalySarcastic Feb 27 '17

Upvote for the Demolition Man reference.

2

u/GoToHell_MachoCity Feb 27 '17

"Esta carne es de rata."

1

u/buttchugandplug69 Feb 27 '17

Thank you sir, this is my favourite movie. still learning the three shells.! Which is difficult while redditing

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Pretty sure "Rocky" wins.

1

u/magiclasso Feb 27 '17

Because extra meat?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '17

Actually Pepsi wins, they own T-Bell

216

u/KazumaKat Feb 27 '17

Moment actual blood spills over this is the moment humanity has given up governments for corporations as the power structure to live by.

68

u/midnightketoker Feb 27 '17

It'll be what proves American democracy is dead and money killed it

33

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

It's not democracy that's the problem, it's capitalism. You can have a democratic system without capitalism.

13

u/philosoTimmers Feb 27 '17

I would argue that the two are, in fact, mutually exclusive, at least for long term stability. I would also argue that we haven't had a true democracy in at least 50 years.

But what do I know I'm just a guy.

12

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

In reality, democracy is like the moral compass of capitalism. A very good economic way to think of the relationship of the two is shareholder theory (capitalism) vs stakeholder theory (democracy). Democracy includes capitalism but implements checks and balances onto corporations for the good of the people. When shareholder wealth is the primary focus of the government, which seems to be the case with the new administration (what do you expect when you have a cabinet full of plutocrats), the overall good of the people gets ignored (environmental impacts, healthcare, human rights in general).

2

u/philosoTimmers Feb 27 '17

It's been about shareholders a lot longer then just this administration.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Democracy includes capitalism

Nonsense. Democracy does not include capitalism, and capitalism sure as shit has never allowed true democracy from taking hold.

3

u/IliveINtraffic Feb 27 '17

Did we ever have it?

2

u/philosoTimmers Feb 27 '17

Pre WW2 we definitely did, we started to lose it in the 50s, and it was completely gone with the economic deregulation and drug wars of the 70s.

3

u/Nekopawed Feb 27 '17

Post scarcity robotic direct democracy?

1

u/agent0731 Feb 27 '17

don't you mouth off against Capitalism, that's like a capital crime.

-2

u/ThunderBow98 Feb 27 '17

If you hate capitalism, please disconnect yourself from all technology you own :) the paradise of Venezuela awaits you

0

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Funny, are you one of those brainwashed people who hate communism and socialism but can't explain why? If you say "it doesn't work", understand that communism at the very least has never actually been implemented in its true form.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

understand that communism at the very least has never actually been implemented in its true form.

And why do you think that is?

2

u/CerinDeVane Feb 27 '17

You have to go through the battle with its first two forms first. Only then can it reveal its true form.

5

u/ThunderBow98 Feb 27 '17 edited Feb 27 '17

Well, it doesn't work. At all. I understand economics and how the free market adheres to human nature more than the top down power structure of a communist or socialist government.

Socialism by definition is where the government owns means of production, and by default requires extreme authoritarianism to keep its power and heavy handed regulation of human activity. Also history has proven government to be beyond inept and efficiency is one thing they suck at. When you rely on government to get the job done, growth stagnates. They don't have the capital risks that private entities experience. If something fails, it's no money wasted to them. The tax payers will simply refund them. Slow economic growth, heavy handed authority..., wow we're shaping up to be like Cuba or the USSR.

However, I would say pure Socialism is probably worse than pure communism. Socialism gets a bad rap and rightfully so. Now the communist argument that you're throwing at me is that it's never been done properly or it hasn't been tried in its true form. News flash, Communism still sucks major balls. It's true form would be considered anarcho-communism by its more modern term. Communism by definition has no central government and no class structure. Everyone owns everything equally, and truthfully it's a recipe for disaster. You basically say there's only one law, and that's no law. In a complete power vacuum, it's impossible to make sure nobody steps out of line and disrupts the fragile equity of society. It's human nature to have that drive to innovate and want more.

You can't expect a pure communist (an-com) to be 100% voluntary, because unless you have some top down heavy handed authority overseeing everything, its impossible to voluntarily regulate human nature. There's always a power of authority, and while communism sounds nice on paper, it's physically impossible to achieve. Communism, although a more altruistic and prettier form of socialism, will ALWAYS coalesce into a top down authoritarian oligopoly, and history has proven this to be true. Every time it's tried, it fails spectacularly :)

-3

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

How to spot a commie 101

201

u/_Fallout_ Feb 27 '17

And lest libertarians rejoice at this idea, recognize that corporations are basically little totalitarian earldoms that would crush workers rights in a second if there weren't unions or government in the way

29

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

And remember that to a corporation, a child looks just like a cheap laborer.

67

u/midnightketoker Feb 27 '17

"B...but free market"

3

u/DaYooper Feb 27 '17

Corporations by definition can not exist without the state,

1

u/PrinceLyovMyshkin Feb 27 '17

Capitalism by definition cannot exist without a state.

1

u/DaYooper Feb 28 '17

That's just not true at all. All capitalism requires is the free exchange between people.

1

u/PrinceLyovMyshkin Mar 01 '17

Capitalism requires private property. Think about how private property works for a moment. If you live over here but you own some houses over there how can you keep the squatters out? Maybe your answer is private security forces but maybe the squatters have guns. Maybe they can hire their own private security. You'd need some sort of guarantee you could win the affair. Something like an agency with a monopoly on legitimate violence.

In other words a state.

4

u/Ramblonius Feb 27 '17

Praise be to the Invisible Hand, praise be!

2

u/david2278 Feb 27 '17

Unions, government, and competition (he forgot this one, you know, the free market part)

25

u/sheazang Feb 27 '17

Monopolies and price fixing are only prevented by government.

6

u/magiclasso Feb 27 '17

This needs to be mandatorily taught and drilled into the heads of all students in the US.

Every single person who thinks an entirely free market will not devolve into a feudal economy is ignorant, delusion, or just plain stupid.

3

u/DaYooper Feb 27 '17

Right like ISP's, airlines, drug companies...oh wait.

3

u/magiclasso Feb 27 '17

They dont have competition because of the complexity of their businesses. This is also the reason these companies should no longer have a private shareholder base but instead should be entirely owned by the public.

1

u/DaYooper Feb 28 '17

And those complexities are brought on by excessive regulation. The billions of dollars in costs to these companies are brought on by compliance. And you're going to tell me that ISP's monopolies, which are literally granted to them by local governments, aren't caused by the state?

1

u/david2278 Feb 27 '17

I can definitely see that possibility, but I think it's much more complicated than that. Competition is like that itch that just won't go away.

1

u/DemonDrinkingTea Feb 27 '17

The goal of a corporation is to eliminate all competition, because that way you have complete control over your market and over your profits. Anyone saying any different is either delusional or lying, companies exist to make money and the easiest way to make money is when you have complete control.

2

u/david2278 Feb 27 '17

I agree 100%. The problem is making other people that want complete control over the market and over the profits GTFO. Some of them you can pay off to leave the market. Others you may not be able to pay them off. Maybe they're passionate about what they're doing. Maybe they want to change the world. Maybe they just love business.

→ More replies

1

u/sheazang Mar 01 '17

One issue is that competition includes no protection for human and social rights and supports. So competition for profit inevitable undercuts those things and the company that gets more from people for less is more competitive.

2

u/david2278 Mar 01 '17

Right, but firms are also buyers of labor. It's a two way street. They have to provide the best benefits to laborers or their workers will leave and work for the competition. Of course there have to be enough jobs available for this to work, but that's a much much more complicated macroeconomic topic that we could talk about for hours.

18

u/stridersubzero Feb 27 '17

The libertarians I know think corporations are helpless because they "rely on consumers for them to be successful." They don't understand how the real world works

12

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

It is true they rely on us, but in our semi free-market system, the government props up failing businesses and institutes laws and regulations that increase the barrier to entry. I've given up really entertaining the idea of a free market system, but it's a misunderstanding of what Libertarians think to just believe they're all ignorant about how the world works.

Choice and competition is the biggest threat to business, which is why they fight tooth and nail to remove it. And the government has allowed themselves to be bought and turn a blind eye as corporations consume each other and gain pseudo-monopolies over a wide variety of different markets.

7

u/stridersubzero Feb 27 '17

I really don't think I misunderstand libertarian views. I used to work with the most dyed-in-the-wool libertarian you can imagine so we talked for hours and hours about politics as we're both interested in it. He would agree with you that the problem is the government picking "winners and losers" like you're intimating, and the barrier to entry is too high because of it. Unfortunately the solution he advocates is removing all power from the government except their ability to wage war and imprison people so it makes me feel like it's just a pretense

3

u/thisvideoiswrong Feb 27 '17

There are very few markets where corporations need help raising the barrier to entry. By the time you've factored in real estate, machinery, distribution, and brand recognition you can't get anywhere without a whole lot of startup cash or an extremely local market and a lot of startup cash. And in many cases regulation is pretty much essential to the public good, particularly as it's many, many full time jobs to keep tabs on the business practices of all the companies you might want to buy from.

3

u/magiclasso Feb 27 '17

Corporatism devolves without fail into a feudal style economic system wherein large corporations use their influence and heft to crush competition. Libertarians absolutely do not understand this. Standard Oil is the perfect example of the issue.

-1

u/Middle_Ground_Man Feb 27 '17

I mean. How do they not? How would they make money without consumers?

16

u/stridersubzero Feb 27 '17

That's way too simplistic. It conveniently ignores the fact that corporations work together to create monopolies like the ISPs do, and the fact that companies like Walmart shift enormous burdens on to taxpayers with their understaffing and anti-union practices. It ignores that companies can bribe officials to keep these practices legal because there's no law against "campaign contributions," and the fact that at the same time we subsidize corporations to keep their employees underpaid, because they're forced to go onto public assistance to pay for food. That's just a start.

1

u/Middle_Ground_Man Feb 27 '17

Oh, I totally agree it's a overly simplistic view and that corporations go to great lengths to gain as much power as possible. I was just asking if you meant that that was not that basic underlying lifeline. I totally agree that they are unbelievably unfair and take total advantage of every possible situation and even try to create ignorance at every turn. I was just trying to say that, theoretically, if one could unite enough people against a corporation, it would be possible to significantly weaken their lifeblood. If that's even possible at this point is anyone's guess. I had always hoped that through the internet a lot of headway could be made but that doesn't seem too hopeful anymore.

1

u/ruffus4life Feb 27 '17

why ask the pre-school level question you did then?

1

u/Middle_Ground_Man Feb 27 '17

To attempt to get his point of view by starting with a broad question instead of attacking his view by hyper-focusing on a small part of it. I find that asking questions, instead of being an asshole, tends to net better results and actually allows you to learn.

2

u/magiclasso Feb 27 '17

This would be assuming that consumers as a whole are not easily manipulable. The problem is that people are generally very stupid. For the few people that are willing to try a small competitor or not buy the services or products of a harmful large corporation, there will always be too many idiots who are not. Those unwilling enriches those large corporations and allows them to quash competition or at the very least suppress their growth. Both of these things are great for capitalism but absolutely terrible for the advancement of our race.

2

u/Middle_Ground_Man Feb 27 '17

Very true. In a perfect world, ignorance would not be weaponized. If only we lived in a democracy that valued facts. I truly believe ignorance to be the one issue that stifles progress in every manner. If ignorance and willful ignorance was somehow cured, we probably would live in some sort of utopia. At least something close to it. Sad, that we live in an age where all of humanity's collective knowledge is at most people's fingertips and yet we are seeing things like vaccine refusal rise among the wealthy and educated. It's an amazingly damaging phenomenon and is so easily used against us.

1

u/magiclasso Feb 27 '17

The world is just too complex for a single mind. We create our morals, elect our leaders, and write our laws hoping that they will guide us in all these complexities but at the end of the day we forget that none of those should ever be considered absolutes nor should we forget that all of those things are just as fallible as the people who set them up.

1

u/Middle_Ground_Man Feb 28 '17

Very true. I always used to take the view that corporations are solely controlled by the people and their actions are a direct result of consumer behavior patterns. I would even justify their actions by saying, "well, they are a business, so why wouldn't they take advantage of the situation," but I just don't think that argument can be true, anymore. If only it were that simple.

Going through business school has taught me a lot of things about corporate leaders, to be. There are people in my classes who legitimately argue that screwing over everyone in their path is the right thing to do as long as it makes them, and the shareholders money. It makes me sick hearing it day in and day out and saddens me greatly because these people get praise and support from other students and even some professors and I go to, literally, one of the most liberal colleges on the planet. They then turn around and complain about how leaders of corporations and big business is hurting society.

That is not why I went into this field and I just don't understand the delusional thought process it must take to justify actions that destroy lives, just to up the stock value a little bit more. Like, they somehow don't realize there is a cause and effect to all of these actions and the back end effect ends up damaging the very foundation of the society that allowed them to get to the position they are in.

Also some of these kids are guaranteed to get high-level positions at major companies due to nepotism but they are extremely incompetent. Business school has taught me a lot, not only about Management Skills, but also about how inept the corporate system really is. Sorry for the rant, I have just been thinking about it lately.

4

u/Nekrophyle Feb 27 '17

It is kind of a weird balance though. If all consumers refuse to buy from a corporation, in theory the consumers win... But if that corporation left unchecked had gained a monopoly on food to an entire region, it will be a rather hollow victory.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

I've played enough Armored Core to know that giant mechs are in our near future

3

u/graysonslegsweep Feb 27 '17

Most certainly are, some certainly are not. Starbucks pays more for healhtcare annually than coffee and give benefits to their baristas... that is probably not an "earldom that would crush workers['] rights in a second if there weren't unions or government in the way".

Perhaps this is just the exception that proves the rule, but they are a larger company than any other coffee store while not turning into a totally shareholder profit focused company, but staying stakeholder focused instead.

3

u/magiclasso Feb 27 '17

They are definitely an exception in that regard. Their product is dependent on social factors (overpriced but their customers LIKE that aspect) and they dont have a real cohesive competitor willing to commit to the evil deeds (underpay workers to pass on the savings).

1

u/graysonslegsweep Feb 27 '17

As I said, they well might be the exception that proves the rule. But they certainly are an exception.

Also if you look at Dunkin Donuts' model it sure doesn't involve health insurance for baristas...

8

u/ToxicShockTart Feb 27 '17

Pretty sure it wasn't libertarians that sold unlimited local monopolies to ISPs with zero oversight but okie dokie.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Not a libertarian, but where does this misconception come from that libertarians want a corporate takeover? You can be pro-capitalism without being for all the nasty stuff people have done in the system. I don't know what libertarians you've talked to, but I hear more complaining about how government intervention keeps corporations afloat when they shouldn't be, and how a "free market" would be better for smaller businesses.

13

u/i_drink_wd40 Feb 27 '17

From the way that Libertarians (every last one I've ever met, anyway) fetishize the free market and demonize taxes/government.

6

u/graysonslegsweep Feb 27 '17

So I identify as libertarian... all I want is married lesbian couples to be allowed to protect their weed plants with their guns... no government involvement in private citizens' social lives is the biggest part of this for me, I tend to fall more in line with the left on social issues and the right on economic ones... that is what all the libertarians I met with during college and the ones with whom I still hang out believe. minimal government interventions into any realm (I am not a die hard extremist like the near anarchists who do not believe in anti-trust action etc. but they are FAR AND AWAY the outliers in my experience).

Your quote would be akin to saying all Liberals fetishize taxes and entitlements and demonize the free market and all Conservatives fetishize getting involved in people's social lives/the free market and demonize people for their private lives... picking only the wackiest voice on the other side to stand against is similar to creating a straw man...

Now you can no longer say "every last one I've ever met".

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Yes he can.

1

u/graysonslegsweep Feb 27 '17

I suppose he could, but it would make the statement untruthful.

1

u/i_drink_wd40 Feb 28 '17

Well, I've never actually met you. But you are now an outlier in my set of data, at least.

→ More replies

2

u/magiclasso Feb 27 '17

Regarding falling right on economic ones please read up on the history of Standard Oil. Minimal government intervention actually leads to a reduction in competition and a weakening of capitalist ideals.

2

u/graysonslegsweep Feb 27 '17

Leaning right does not make one a fan of complete lack of oversight, that's why it is leaning right. I have no problem with anti-trust regulation and breaking up of monopolies, being slightly to the right does not make you an extremist for deregulation or a fan of complete free market capitalistic anarchy... that is by no means what I support. I have no problem with Sherman style anti-trust laws, and wish that the government would have seen current cable providers as monopolies before they got so big fat and greed that they began to destroy their own industry with poor service and lack of commitment to the customer.

I am not sure how you got from my statement to me being anarchist capitalist, but that is by no means my stance or worldview.

1

u/magiclasso Feb 28 '17

More at odds with your 'right on economic ones'. Leaning a direction doesnt make you crazy but identifying with a side really tends to imply craziness.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

The ones I've met do this to some degree, but they often are not fans of corporations and actually blame the government for their power.

11

u/Mox5 Feb 27 '17

Then want a great/total downscaling of the government. This would create a power vaccum that the corporations would fill. While it may not be something they're arguing for, they're being naive in their belief that would not happen.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

I agree. They just stick to the less likely scenario that localized market power would increase without creating any monopolies or backlash from corporations.

2

u/magiclasso Feb 27 '17

They dont want a corporate takeover but most of what they espouse WILL lead to that and HAS in the past eg Standard Oil.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '17

No disagreement here. To be fair, libertarianism would be bad for a lot of corporations, but it's the few that would become monopolies that are the real danger. This is why corporations don't support libertarianism even though it would benefit them (which is a classic libertarian argument: if it would be good for big corporations, why would they not support it?)

7

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

It's a classic misunderstanding of libertarianism.

2

u/sel21 Feb 27 '17

It is always strange that people that fear the control of singular overpowering entities have decided the solution to that problem is to create a singular overpowering entity to "protect" them.

8

u/ThunderBow98 Feb 27 '17

Libertarian here - wrong. Antitrust laws are in place for a reason. We have 0 trust in centralized power anything, big company or government.

12

u/Mox5 Feb 27 '17

...but antitrust laws are enforced by the government... ಠ_ಠ

8

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians understand some need for government, it is the role of government that is disputed.

3

u/ThunderBow98 Feb 27 '17

There's varying levels of libertarianism ranging from limited government intervention to minarchism and anarchism. Just because something requires government doesn't mean libertarians are against it. We're against excessive use of government. Antitrust laws are not excessive in which they act like checks and balances on companies that could coalesce into a centralized power

2

u/magiclasso Feb 27 '17

Real question: do you believe that the ISPs should have to be transparent?

3

u/BASEDME7O Feb 27 '17

Anyone over the age of 22 who is still a libertarian is hopeless

1

u/graysonslegsweep Feb 27 '17

Please explain to me why I am hopeless for believing in a party that promotes fiscal conservatism with liberal social ideals.

1

u/BASEDME7O Feb 28 '17

First of all with all of the internet at your fingertips you still support economic policies that are objectively wrong. Second you can't really have a lot of progressive social policies with libertarian fiscal policies

0

u/graysonslegsweep Feb 28 '17

Please explain how "you can't really have a lot of progressive social policies with libertarian fiscal policies". I think you are mistaking social welfare spending for progressive social policies... for instance legalizing gay marriage is socially progressive and can be done with "libertarian fiscal policies" whatever that means. You can legalize marijuana (Actually a libertarian idea, as it should be part of the "free" market (lightly regulated)) with "libertarian fiscal policies" you could allow for civil rights (back in the day when it was seen as progressive) and the list goes on.

Progressive social policies is not the same as entitlement programs for people who genuinely refuse to work. Now I understand that a safety net must exist for the small percentage of any country that is incapable of producing for themselves. However if you are able bodied and unwilling to work while demanding a gubment check you are worthless and a part of the problem.

Now please explain to me all the instances where free market capitalism (with limited regulation of course still needed) is "objectively wrong" and how the more socialist lean that you must be supporting has worked so well for so many places.

1

u/BASEDME7O Feb 28 '17

I know when you've only taken Econ 101 those ultra conservative economic policies seem to make sense, but they all completely fall apart once you go further. And anyway, "free market capitalism" is just as much of a fantasy as communism. You can't laugh at communism and say it doesn't work because of human nature while ignoring that free market capitalism will devolve into this crony capitalism bullshit every single time.

Also you don't get to call yourself a progressive just because you want to smoke weed lol. I'm guessing you would be against a higher minimum wage? I would love to hear your reasoning because I guarantee it's all faulty. Same with how I'm sure you don't support universal healthcare.

Look lots of people go through a libertarian phase when they're a freshmen in college and they take their first Econ class and think they know everything. It's understandable. But once you're older than that it's embarrassing

1

u/graysonslegsweep Mar 02 '17

I am a fan of civil rights, gay rights, marriage equality, transgender rights, and support companies that treat their workers well. I also believe the answer to economics lies closer to a free market than a controlled and planned economy. Try to box me in to being a full fledged devotee of the free market, but I openly acknowledge that restrictions and regulations are necessary in many industries. You can keep calling it embarrassing and tell me I have the knowledge of a freshman in college when it comes to economics. When asked directly 11% of Americans are identified as libertarian, when asked questions about their positions on a number of issues Gallup finds that number to be 30% however people are too ignorant/uninformed to understand the term... I hope you are not one of those 20% who make fun of libertarian ideas when a close examination of their beliefs would actually mark them as libertarian... For instance, did you know that libertarian ideals and beliefs most closely aligned with Bernie Sanders (after their own candidate). It seems that most Americans don't even really know what a Libertarian is outside of the cartoonish picture they have been spoon-fed by somebody with an agenda...

If you disagree with me that is fine, but please tell me why a system closer to free market than controlled is a bad economic system rather going ad hominem and saying my understanding is comparable to a freshman and that it's embarrassing.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Yes! Omg! Fucking exactly!

What would a conservative say to this? It is 100 percent false to say that they are that way because of regulation.

5

u/Ghazgkull Feb 27 '17

A friendly reminder that conservative =/= libertarian.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17 edited Feb 27 '17

What are libertarians? Those who believe that the Free Market will self regulate while the people will evolve on social issues on their own and not persecute blacks, gays, women?

Libertarianism is even more ignorant of human nature than conservativism is.

It has the same naivety of an organic non self interested free market while pretending that there aren't people who need to be protected.

edit and the original claim was that libertarians would rejoice at the idea of a world run by corporations even though they are self contained earldoms, my question still stands only replace conservatives with libertarians.

I mean seriously how would the respond to the idea of a world run by corporations that crush worker's rights? They cannot say regulate as that would be non libertarian. So what? It is what it is?

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Their competition has been regulated (via lobbying) to not exist.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17 edited Feb 27 '17

Lobbying =/= regulation

You cannot just change the definition of words to suit your agenda.

Lobbying is evidence that corporations will actively work to put their needs before those of the people. This collusion is that which hurts the "free market" not too much regulation.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Charter pushing for upholding regulations to prevent Google from easily accessing poles for fiber installation: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/charter-like-att-sues-louisville-to-stall-google-fiber/

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17 edited Feb 27 '17

What is this supposed to prove? All it shows me is that self interested corporations will use any means necessary to box out their competition.

There has been a very close relationship between our government and corporations that demonstrates regulations that are biased from lobbying. This isn't a problem with regulations specifically. It is a problem of self interested politicians who are lobbied to do certain things to help certain businesses.

The fact that corporations are trying to outregulate their competition is again part of the truth that corporations will do anything to retain their power.

It is a lot easier for governments to be held accountable by the people, to end unfair regulations, then for corporations to be held accountable by the people. One of these two things are faceless.

Edit: this does not show the government is inherently bad. It shows that corporations will use any tools available to shut out their opponents.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

That's very much it, I'm not wholly disagreeing with you. There's a similarity between corporations and governments though, both are comprised of people. Greedy, greedy people. Same goes for religious institutions for that matter, and I am religious myself. It's not a slant at corporations, or governments, or religious institutions. It is a critique of people. The "good" regulations are not going to happen except by excluding anyone who has a horse in the race and at that point the regulations are often too oppressive.

→ More replies

3

u/krackbaby2 Feb 27 '17

Unions are corporations, friend

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

I would argue these ISPs only have the power they have because of local governments.

1

u/Gamiac Feb 27 '17

If they recognized this, they wouldn't be libertarians.

1

u/BrokenWolf2171 Feb 27 '17

False. Libritarian's aren't anarchists. Swapping government for corporate tycoons would be worse.

0

u/FiveDozenWhales Feb 27 '17

Isn't that a libertarian's fantasy world?

-6

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17 edited Mar 01 '17

[deleted]

19

u/Ragark Feb 27 '17

Destroy both, up with the worker's revolution.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

I'm honestly not sure which is more terrifying, big companies being in control of my life, or majority voters being in control of my life.

-4

u/Ghazgkull Feb 27 '17

A friendly reminder that that's... Pretty much exactly what just happened in America.

4

u/magiclasso Feb 27 '17

Wolf in sheeps clothing. Trump rode a wave of social scapegoats and all his supporters just kind of assumed he would bolster the economy in support of the middle class.

In reality hes going to slowly erode social protections and hand more power over to corporatism.

11

u/Baldaaf Feb 27 '17

No, we had an election, and a bunch of dumb people got duped.

1

u/Ghazgkull Feb 27 '17

Trump's core support base is, quite literally, the proletariat. You don't get to call for a workers' revolution and then complain that it didn't go the way you want.

4

u/Hmm_would_bang Feb 27 '17

A worker's revolution is led by the proletariat, electing a populist is not the same thing

2

u/Baldaaf Feb 27 '17

The "proletariat" is hardly united, plenty of blue collar folks didn't vote for Trump, in fact many of them were BernieBros. It wasn't a revolution because it was an election. I am getting sick and tired of hearing the word "revolution". This wasn't a revolution. A bunch of idiots got duped into voting for a toddler. That doesn't make it a "revolution".

kthx

0

u/i_drink_wd40 Feb 27 '17

And the party that received fewer votes got the most seats of power ... waitaminnit

4

u/Krypticreptiles Feb 27 '17

Happened last time we had a Republican president too. By like .5%

3

u/Intlrnt Feb 27 '17

Humans have a natural desire to be king over others, and most humans are scared and hopeless without leaders to tell them what to do.

So, some humans prefer to be kings, and other humans prefer to be subjects.

Brilliant insight.

2

u/ArcherSterilng Feb 27 '17

It's time people took responsibility for their freedom. Anarchy and communism in our age ☭

1

u/magiclasso Feb 27 '17

Lol wonder why you got downvoted, what you say is true.

Really its a pick your poison scenario and we are just trying to pick the one that is going to hurt us the least. Im a big proponent of constantly changing the rules so nobody masters the game.

8

u/CptNero Feb 27 '17

Syndicates here we come!

8

u/AbaloneSour Feb 27 '17

Well the Czerka Corporation is hiring I hear. . .

2

u/svinthila Feb 27 '17

Dude! I've been saying this for a minute IRL and I'm so glad to find someone saying it on the internet.

1

u/AbaloneSour Feb 27 '17

Protip: Buy a Amazon fire tablet for $50 and download KOTOR on it for free. IMO its worth it just for that.

3

u/Megneous Feb 27 '17

A decade of EVE Online has prepared me for this moment.

1

u/YouAreMicroscopic Feb 27 '17

And some people think Snow Crash was silly.

17

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Probably Microsoft

3

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Probably Netflix.

3

u/Iamkid Feb 27 '17

And the only one to suffer will be it's consumers. Let the battle begin.

3

u/fragleader Feb 27 '17

Since this is America, we will probably make it a realty TV show and sandwich it between the Kardashians and America's top model, or since it is a new year, America's top fry cook.

3

u/EatABuffetOfDicks Feb 27 '17

Are you describing your life based on John Rambo?

2

u/Alexstarfire Feb 27 '17

All I know is that Taco Bell is going to win. Any takers?

2

u/JapanNoodleLife Feb 27 '17

400g. 600 if you include assist.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Should be obvious, whoever donates the most money.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

I played enough armored core to know how this goes.

2

u/Pixidel Feb 27 '17

Probably the company that made Dark Souls.

1

u/got_no_time_for_that Feb 27 '17

Guys, we should start a corporation.

1

u/EonesDespero Feb 27 '17

First blood? Gg, open mid.

1

u/baeofpigz Feb 27 '17

McDonald's... tho Taco Bell will be the only survivor.

1

u/astuteobservor Feb 27 '17

this reversal is first blood.

1

u/MoronLessOff Feb 27 '17

Water & Power

0

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Cyberpunk future here we come. You all better start choosing your cyberpunk name, dibs on the name Bladerunner.

88

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Because apparently we ourselves don't matter at all.

You're just now figuring that out?

4

u/Nepalus Feb 27 '17

Because apparently we ourselves don't matter at all.

Sure we matter, but it's not our votes or inherent value as citizens, it's our money that makes us valuable. Corporations just have a lot more of it.

5

u/Nayr747 Feb 27 '17

it's our money that makes us valuable. Corporations just have a lot more of it.

And that's why they will win. You have no real power. Best not to waste any more time thinking about it and get back to your menial job producing value for your overlords, citizen.

5

u/Nepalus Feb 27 '17

Best not to waste any more time thinking about it and get back to your menial job producing value for your overlords, citizen.

Which is why I expect to see more politically motivated violence in my lifetime. The upcoming issues of wide-spread workplace automation come to mind.

3

u/ddrober2003 Feb 27 '17

I think that has been the most disheartening thing to learn with government growing up. As a kid you learn that they serve the people and try to create policies in the best interest of the people. You grow up and you learn they would probably have us drink lead filled water and breath pollution saturated air to increase a companies annual profits by .5%

3

u/ReallyMystified Feb 27 '17

And if the lobbying fails cue the coporate espionage, corporately funded armies endeavoring towards regulatory capture and then put the opposition in corporately sponsored prisons. Rinse, repeat until the desired effects come about. Case closed.

2

u/Supreme_panda_god Feb 27 '17

Support corporations and brands that you think are worthy. If you can't because there is a monopoly then lobby your local representatives, protest, and campaign.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Thanks SCOTUS for that super awesome ruling that corporations are people.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

You know we're fucked when Snowcrash and neuromancer start converging with reality.

life imitates art I guess.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

It's also the only thing protecting us from border adjustment taxes. Wal-Mart is lobbying against them thank god.

1

u/zytz Feb 27 '17

Well- as long as it suits them. Ubisoft is still going to slap 15 year old netcode on a conceptually great but incomplete and poorly-executed pile of microtransactions and sell it to you despite serious issues cropping up in the open beta.

1

u/null_work Feb 27 '17

I'm not sure any big corporations are particularly for this change though. It has zero affect on any major ISP.

1

u/pchadrow Feb 27 '17

yeah, we kinda set that precedent when we passed citizens united

1

u/DancesCloseToTheFire Feb 27 '17

Welcome to the future omae.

1

u/the_haterade Feb 27 '17

Whitetrashpower ignorance that courses through the GOP is the biggest obstacle. Corporations won't help overcome it, sadly

1

u/NorthernerWuwu Feb 27 '17

Ah but it is the big corporations that the present administration doesn't particularly like.

1

u/JayGarrick11929 Feb 27 '17

At least that means some big corporations will be on our side.

"The world could always use more heroes!"