71–80 of 83 posts
The fact that big tech companies like Facebook support net neutrality actually makes me consider not supporting it. I just don't trust Facebook's motives - What I do trust is their ability and willingness to screw over society in order to maximise profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think notadoc meant to use the term "mental gymnastics". (I agree "cognitive dissonance" seems to be misused lately. That's how language evolves, unfortunately. And to add to your definition, it's the stress from with holding two opposing thoughts, hence the dissonance.)
How about "cognitive disconnect" as the better descriptive phrase?
[1] - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28conserv.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't Facebook's Internet.org project a direct affront on net neutrality?
No, Internet.org Free Basics is Facebook paying people's data costs for traffic to Facebook services, akin to Amazon giving out Amazon gift cards. It isn't preventing anyone from buying other traffic at standard destination-neutral rates, or privatizing a publicly-financed utility.
I think it could be argued that sponsoring 3rd party services required to access Facebook under the condition they won't be used to access competing sites is a novel form of dumping. Clearly the goal is to get poor people hooked on FB before they can afford to buy actual Internet access and decide for themselves.
And suggesting that this monopolistic propaganda initiative can be called "Internet Basics" is a direct affront to the Internet itself.
If Facebook actually wanted to be neutral they would sponsor unrestricted access with small data cap. Still good enough for browsing Facebook and Wikipedia but without the vendor lock-in.
I never understood Americans' obsession of having the government control ISPs. Like, I'm sure most of people here are liberals who hate Trump. Do you seriously want the Trump administration having the means to control the way ISPs deliver content? Take it from somebody living in Russia, you really don't want that.
While I agree on principle, I always make exceptions for monopolies: ISPs in the US are local monopolies: they carved up the market geographically and deliberately choose not to compete.
The perverse thing is that the Republicans echo your hands-off sentiment at federal level, while Republican-ruled states are busy passing hands-on laws that ban municipal networks.
I never understood Americans' obsession of having the government control ISPs. Like, I'm sure most of people here are liberals who hate Trump. Do you seriously want the Trump administration having the means to control the way ISPs deliver content? Take it from somebody living in Russia, you really don't want that.
The free market ideology is based on a assumption that a actual free market exists and that assumption is false when it comes to most forms of infrastructure including Internet cables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So what matters is that we shine light on their agenda so that it is not possible for them to credibly deny they are not following their own policies. And who is going to shine a line or report on that? The "fake news" media? Nobody will care, they don't want to hear it and they won't believe it, cognitive dissonance is amazingly powerful.
It's a long game. This administration will (eventually) turn over, and we need the new guys to be very clear about where the old guys fucked up.
Is it possible to release technology under the GPL?
Maybe the real solution is open alternatives to the current internet infrastructure? Is it possible to release technology under the GPL?