191–200 of 316 posts
"An investigation by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) found that the fake comments used the identities of millions of consumers, including thousands of New Yorkers, without their knowledge or consent." $615k seems like a slap on the wrist for what they did.
They got fined $600k, the telecoms saved billions Pretty good deal if you ask me
This kind of shit is one of the reasons why people stop believing in western democracy.
Here is my simple reasoning: (1) Large internet companies fight feverishly for net neutrality. (2) Based on past experience, it is inconceivable to me that they would so feverishly fight for the end-users' benefit. (3) Therefore, they fight for the net neutrality because it very beneficial to them. I am guessing there is something inside Internet backbone data transfer that allows these companies to make tons of mone…
Any traffic induces load on their systems/infrastructure and happens disproportionately based on the service being consumed (e.g. Netflix early days, instagram).
So the economic fight of Net Neutrality was based on bandwith-intensive services not paying for transit proportionate to their traffic volume (driven by consumers), and the maintenance cost being borne by the last-mile providers. Allegedly.
The problem comes from the fact that last-mile providers are monopolies in just about every place in the USA, meaning that they can already charge whatever they want to the consumer for the bandwidth _they_ consume. ISPs shouldn't be allowed to charge both directions for the single link they own going to buildings. And we don't want every building to have thousands of wires going to it for every new telecommunication company in existance, which is why we have Title II of the Communications Act.
By repealing net neutrality it allows last-mile providers (largely owned by major national media corporations) to unfairly compete against new technologies and media companies in the marketplace who's growth was fueled largely in part by requiring equal access to bandwidth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is why, I think, the future is either putting your money (or at least provable identity) where your mouth is That will become less effective as companies become increasingly centralized, with just a few having many, many brands.
Why would companies becoming more centralized make "putting your money where your mouth is" less effective?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is why, I think, the future is either putting your money (or at least provable identity) where your mouth is That will become less effective as companies become increasingly centralized, with just a few having many, many brands.
Why would companies becoming more centralized make "putting your money where your mouth is" less effective?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If my dog bites somebody, I'm on the hook. It should be no different with companies--otherwise there's no incentive to avoid funding shady behavior. Stock ownership is rewarding because it's risky. Let it be risky.
I will not silently go to prison because my 401k worth under USD 20k owns 0.0015 shares as a part of some mutual fund. The CEO and the board do not do my bidding. Send them to prison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if your water pipe decided to only serve you water occasionally, and when it did threw some random bull-crap in there? Who would vote for that system?
Imagine if your television only showed you ads and propaganda.