Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

TheTimeKnife ,
@TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world avatar

Good, absurdly corrupt law.

billiam0202 ,

Wait, a system where the government provides a service subsidized by taxes, and where if the citizens don't like it they can get a private option, and the existence of the government option would force the private options to be innovative and competitive if they wanted to continue existing?

Man, what a healthy approach to industry. I wonder in what other ways we could carefully apply this method?

LodeMike ,

Trains :))

ripcord ,
@ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

Planes!

KairuByte ,
@KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Automobiles!

shadow ,

Health!

themurphy ,

And insurance, honestly.

9488fcea02a9 ,

Private ISPs are already highly subsidized by taxes... Just take away those subsidies and give us a public option.

applepie ,

Amazing how this even legals lol

CosmicTurtle0 ,

It's legal because ISPs wrote the laws.

dan1101 ,
@dan1101@lemm.ee avatar

Yes to add to that some cable companies were literally writing the state laws.

Toes ,
@Toes@ani.social avatar

Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity. With no stipulations on how or why you're using it.

Jarix ,

With no stipulations on how or why you're using it.

Will not happen because of things like CSAM

Bob_Robertson_IX ,

Good thing water and electricity can't be used to harm kids.

Jarix , (edited )

You miss the point. I'm just saying there will be SOME stipulations on how its used

Edit:

Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity. With no stipulations on how or why you're using it.

Should have just been according to everyone:

Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity.

Yall telling me some stipulations dont need to be mentioned, using utilites as an example, and yet im also pointing that out and you are trying to say the same thing i am but using my own argument to convince me im wrong.

What a wild place

gh0stcassette ,
@gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I mean yeah, but I they were talking about net neutrality, preventing ISPs from unilaterally making those decisions, not that there would be Literally No restrictions.

Jarix ,

Should have said what they meant then instead of being lazy. There will be so many obvious stipulations it was stupid to say no stipulations. Dont understand why so many people insist on avoiding saying what they mean and just then say, you know what i meant.

I say this because if you have ever planned or ran a dnd(or any ttrpg)game you are quickly made aware that whats obvious to most, and even what should be obvious to most will often be the hardest thing to get people to include in how they hear what they are being told.

Its wild how much we expect people to assume, when we have so much evidence, if you care to ask for it/look for it and how often we get caught up with dumb derailments(Case in point... I think we are having a discussion, but wont be surprised if you think we are arguing over pedantry. )

Agrivar ,

Case in point... I think we are having a discussion, but wont be surprised if you think we are arguing over pedantry.

As an outside observer, I feel like I can confidently say that you are wrong. YOU are being needlessly pedantic and derailing the conversation.

Jarix ,

Okay fair enough and thank you for responding. Im not arguing the pedantry of it, but i do believe its useful and not needless. Meaning i think its worth discussing and debating.

Because if im wrong, then theres no difference between;

Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity. With no stipulations on how or why you're using it.

And

Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity.

So if im wrong as i understand thats what you mean, i would genuinely like to understand what/why ”with no stupulations on how or why you're using it" it is worth including.

Again if im wrong i literally cant see the difference and will go a long way to help me not respond to these kinds of things in the future and you would have done a service by helping me not derail other conversations. Which i will be very grateful for your help

Agrivar ,

Really? Are you on the spectrum?

You're not wrong, as far as the logical expansion of the statements in question. The 'with no stipulations' part is, technically, unnecessary. But we don't live in a Platonic ideal. You are free to add reinforcing/qualifying statements to a basic idea being posited. If you're being sincere in your request for clarity, and not just being a snark, my advice would be to ignore everything I say and just do as you want! LOL

Jarix ,

No snark. I dont understand the point of adding that second line if its not accurate or indicative of the previous statement. If it isnt clarifying conditions of the previous statement, it just adding confusion. So how does it "reinforce". Like literally how is that a statement that supports the previous one?

Edit. Im starting to think maybe i am on the spectrum...

KairuByte ,
@KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Only in the sense that laws still need to be followed while using [the internet/water/electricity]. You don’t need to bake “no CSAM” into internet usage agreements, because it’s already illegal.

Jarix ,

Okay but there's much less obvious examples. My point still stands

Also see my reply to gh0stcassette

Codilingus ,

If you share your water or electricity with a neighbor, I think they can cut you off and/or fine you. Probably dependent on the state?

Toes ,
@Toes@ani.social avatar

Yeah, stuff like that is likely decided at the municipality level.

Gormadt ,
@Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Ah yeah some good news on my feed

I hope that number keeps falling

psmgx ,

Good. Fuck the LEC system, let anyone have a crack at it

Brkdncr OP ,

I’ve always thought that local gov should be able to provide a baseline level of access to the internet, with commercial vendors bringing services and value above that baseline. Sadly our elected representatives were convinced otherwise. I’m glad to see movement in the right direction though.

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Minnesota this week eliminated two laws that made it harder for cities and towns to build their own broadband networks.

But the list has gotten smaller in recent years because states including Arkansas, Colorado, and Washington repealed laws that hindered municipal broadband.

The Minnesota bill enacted this week struck down a requirement that municipal telecommunications networks be approved in an election with 65 percent of the vote.

The caveat that prevented municipalities from competing against private providers was eliminated from the law when this week's omnibus bill was passed.

As a result, the law now lets cities and towns "improve, construct, extend, and maintain facilities for Internet access and other communications purposes" even if private ISPs already offer service.

With Minnesota having repealed its anti-municipal broadband laws, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance says that 16 states still restrict the building of municipal networks.

The original article contains 558 words, the summary contains 143 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • random
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •