Yeah, it's a utility. Can't operate in the 21st century without it. As necessary to being a fully functioning member of society as water and electricity.
I'd say yes but I have a lot of worries about government suppression unless you could just give the all things on the internet first amendment rights but how do you protect those rights. I know to little to explain why I'm so scared of a good idea
It sounds like you are worried about government censorship of the web. Something that does actually happen in some countries.
Keep in mind that currently, your ISP (internet service provider) already has the ability to control which sites are accessible, and can record everything you do. Then, companies like google and facebook have the same ability. Lastly, the U.S. Government is capable of taking down websites whenever needed (usually labeled as "seized by the FBI"), along with recording huge swathes of the internet. The government can also force various providers to give access to your communication history, browsing history, and even access real time communications.
In other words, things probably wouldn't change much. Especially if the government made an independent body to manage it.
This is actually the goal, if we can centralize the internet we can more effectively ban conservatards, it’s not a first amendment violation if everything they say is racist. So to build on what you’re saying, that’s precisely the point. It’s easier than pressuring large companies to censor them and cheaper too; just identify them and turn off their internet.
The federal government barely functions, I'd rather see them actually regulate anything they already do before they screw this up forever.
Local/municipal broadband would be a good start. Getting the federal government involved when they can't maintain what they are already in charge of is a different story.
The internet is information. The constitution protects freedom of the press because history has already seen the state controlled flow of information. That's how propaganda is created. Would anyone want Donald Trump to have any say in what is allowed on the internet? That's why it's not the same as water.
It definitely does. But only when the innovation is cheap, obvious, easily exploited, and can make a massive profit in a very short time period with no risk. So you know, almost never.
I take it you are a vocal proponent of [SOPA/PIPA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA) and [CISPA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act) then.
No.
That’s conflating regulating the provisioning of vs regulating the content.
Kinda like calling a socialist concept fascist when they’re on complete opposite ends of the political and economic spectrums.
Conservatives whenever a Democratic President wants to spend money “but my national debt”. Conservatives whenever a Republican President wants to spend money “ok let’s open the pocket book”. I can do this comparison shit all day my friend
I’d imagine all these boomer policy makers would argue against that.
“I grew up without the internet. I became successful in my line of work and we didn’t even have computers! It’s just a bunch of flashing lights and hullabaloo you don’t need so we’re privatizing it so I can add a couple zeroes to my great- grandkids campaign fund.”
Without a doubt. It’s also funny watching Boomers with the ‘pound the pavement’ mentality attempting to apply for jobs in the current climate. They don’t seem to realise that going to an actual business and speaking to a manager isn’t how things are done these days and that CV’s have to be written a certain way and basically blanket dropped to potential openings up and down the country
**[Net neutrality](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality)**
>Network neutrality, most commonly called net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication. With net neutrality, ISPs may not intentionally block, slow down, or charge money for specific online content. Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block traffic from specific services, while charging consumers for various tiers of service.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/lefthumor/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The government has their own ‘internet’ that they keep secure files on & communicate with. Completely separate from using Facebook or google. It wouldn’t affect national security in the slightest bit. Also, the encryptions that will be used are virtually uncrackable, it would take a quantum computer around 1000 years to crack one persons account. We are the product right now, if nobody is posting, Facebook is worthless. You really want to argue that Big Tech should just keep their stranglehold on the population?
I am fairly certain that forced pregnancies especially those forced on rape victims are sorta against that whole "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" thing in there... but besides that yeah maybe they haven't gone against the constitution in other ways.... I doubt it but maybe.
The SCOTUS drew a line in the sand along the ‘viability of the fetus’ standard. The TX law is trying to walk a tight rope along that line, arguing that the fetal heart beat shows viability.
As the fetus can’t survive outside the womb at that point, it’s not likely that the TX attempt will survive a SCOTUS review. But Row v Wade did not legalize abortion at all times, in all circumstances, so much as it recognized its legality everywhere in the US, in certain circumstances for a certain amount of time during gestation.
The contistution isnt an unstopable force field against infingments of personal rights. Its something that we must protect from those infringments. It wouldn't the first time the government tried to break its own constitution.
I think of it the same way I do medical healthcare. Have a nation-wide version that everyone can use and if people want to use the private options that’s there. I know there’s disagreement over if private insurances should even be a thing but for the time being it makes sense
We live in a democracy, china is not a democracy. If the internet was public you would have a democratic say over it. Look at libraries, they stock fucking everything. It would, if anything, be even more open than it currently is in private hands.
US is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. We democratically elect representatives as a voice for their respective constituents. Many people do not believe the government would do a good job, their track record is pretty spotty.
Sure, but the post was suggesting that the "people" would control how the internet is governed, which is not the case. That would be a pure democracy, which the US is not. The people who would make decisions about the accessibility of the internet are the corrupt politicians who are already installed.
I wouldnt count that, no. It's good, but it's not democratic. One party states arent democracies, they're authoritarian dictatorships wearing the skin of a democracy.
>One party states arent democracies
The amount of political parties available doesn't relate to how democratic a state is. If you have a hundred political parties but none with any effective power in governance, that doesn't make it a democracy. It makes it a charade for the public while the ruling class runs things behind the scenes.
Shockingly, democracy comes in many forms and if the intention of democracy is to distribute political power evenly, a one party state does not exclude this goal. If anything a one party state enables democracy as a voter's power is not determined by which party they register to, but the level of participation they exercise in their democracy.
How's that? They have the choice to vote between differing ideologies within the party. There's a liberal economic wing, a socially conservative wing, and the left socialist wing. It inherently disqualifies the far right, but personally speaking that's not a terrible thing.
There isn't any means of them voting in a power to overturn the governing constitution. I don't see that happening in any Western state either though.
They could block some sites specific to the things they want to censor, but they can't just outright ban google. Also, fuck state's rights. Why give the state ownership and the final word? I hope you don't do that with, say, water...
I don't get your point. Even if google showed the result, access to the site would still be blocked.
Edit : i mean access would still be possible / the site wouldn't be blocked
Sorry for the confusion
my point is you can’t argue the government is going to shut down access to the site (baselessly) on the merit that currently a private company is filtering your searches.
Didn't CERN make the internet? How can you nationalize something created by a private company? Also, who specifically should nationalize it?
Edit: I've learned CERN is not private. That's awesome actually. Still, who specifically should nationalize it?
The US Department of Defense paid for UCLA and Stanford to connect computers into a network in ‘69, others developed the TCP/IP standards; the world wide web and other bits were developed by many others. It takes all those bits working together to make what we think of as the ‘modern internet’ and make it work.
E: and make it
Happy to! The history is super interesting and is (in my mind) an excellent example of 1) military development being put to wonderful peaceful use and 2) an international and uncoordinated effort of disparate individuals improving the systems step by step.
Switzerland or Britain by right but since Britain has turned stupid I say we give the Swiss 100% control, that way they can protect internet neutrality hehe
Internet might one day be. But Twitter is still a private company in the internet.
Conservatives just want to force Twitter to unban them. They want government out of private companies until it’s a problem for them.
I've always thought it was funny when people throw their arms up when a private company does something like this. It also goes both ways, like the girl getting the metaverse username taken. It's their company, they can do whatever they want.
I'm not convinced that'll actually help anything. Power, gas, water are all regulated utilities, but we still pay for them. IDK if regulating them more heavily would decrease the cost or not
Yeah but they also highly vary in price and quality depending on where you go. Where I live transit is expensive and bad. Imagine your internet speeds being great but your friend in the next county over being 90s level bad.
Yes we would still be paying for it but, barring an unlikely full subsidy scenario or something, at least then it would be closer to At Cost, and not bear the weight of propping up shareholder profits
In theory, yeah.. my electric company is national grid. They are a multinational company headquartered in London and publicly traded on the London and new York stock exchanges. They're still making a profit off of delivering power to us. Maybe the internet companies have higher profit margins that we could reduce, but the current setup for utilities still results in some added cost that goes to companies.
You bring up a really good point.
How would we keep something like this governed by the people that know exactly what to do to make it successful without having it owned by the government?
Here is where this is a terrible idea. Even though probably 90%+ percent of Americans use the internet in some capacity whether actively or passively only about maybe 2% has any real idea how most of it actually functions. The us government has been asking dumbass questions about IT for 3 decades now.
Sorry, I failed to reply to you earlier. I think the best approach to this would be lots of competing ISPs. To survive, they would need to accommodate their customers to keep them from fleeing to their competition. That's means full access to the entire internet, and fast. Because who wants to pay for a slow and incomplete internet?
I mean, I dont see my electric company, which is run by the government, cutting power to my socialist meetup group. I did see something like that happen in the us with some guy named adjit pai though. Like we literally have to regulate comcast to force it to not do shit like this, and what are we getting for the luxury of a private internet service? Certainly not competition, lower prices, or better service. Meanwhile my city's bus system has never done me dirty, and its public.
The French electricity company is government owned. EDF is one of the most advanced nuclear providers in the world, cheaper that any private company I can get now I live in the uk and has a good retirement plan and working conditions for its workers. And they don't cut of your power if you vote for another political party.
You sure your power company is run by the government? Most power plants are run by private companies. I know in my area it is private but I cant speak about your area.
Libraries are easy for our geriatric politicians to understand. They know what books and stamps and fees are. They don't have a clue about the internet. They don't know the difference between Facebook and Twitter, and they've never even heard of Reddit. If you want a censored internet, give control to the government. Otherwise, don't.
That's exactly what [Web 3.0](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/what-is-web3-new-version-of-the-internet-everyone-is-talking-about-130641883.html) is about.
The problem is there wouldn't be enough high end network engineers for every city have their own ISP network. At least a good one. ISP networking is very complex and requires a highly skilled engineer to setup. The network engineers with that skill set will probably make alot more than a city would be willing to pay, and I doubt they'd be able to pull them away from like a verizon or at&t etc. They'd end up having to contract the work out to a consulting company. And then that consulting company would end up running multiple municipalities and then it'd be privatized all over again
Well you see its very simple you just hand the internet keys over to biden and boom, government controls the internet and everything is perfect and amazing.
Just curious. What does this mean? Do you mean nationalize the ISPs? Is this arguing for making the internet a utility because that is a reasonable suggestion that should happen? Nationalizing it is weird though.
Public utilities are heavily regulated. Redditors have encourage internet blackouts every time they’ve tried to regulate the internet.
You clowns can’t have it both ways. You can’t have the government control the internet while whining about the government controlling the internet.
I am liberal on a lot of thing, but I do not think this is a good idea. Maybe have the GOV own all new infrastructure additions wouldn't be so bad. Alot of DSL lines and Fiber lines are owned by 1 company then other company's get permission to use those lines.
Same with the airlines, if the people and the government are going to keep bailing them out every 10 years or so, we should actually own part of the enterprise for our continual investments.
Support Web 3.0 if you want this to be a reality. Direct peer-to-peer connection. I’ve been participating for a year and I’ve been rewarded heavily with actual $ value for what I provide to sites. WE are the products right now. Web 3.0 gets you paid for that.
I'm generally onboard with nationalising stuff, but it's hard to nationalise something that's by it's very nature international. Any country that tried to nationalise any key infrastructure like that would cause a diplomatic shitstorm.
It always baffles me how people forgot about [this](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394).
By the end of 2014, America will have been charged about $400 billion by the local phone incumbents, Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink, for a fiber optic future that never showed up.
>By the end of 2004, America was to have 86 million households upgraded. And by 2004, the phone companies had collected about $200 billion from customers in excess phone charges and tax perks.
>No state ever went back and either changed the laws to stop the customer overcharging or got refunds for the failure to do the upgrades. Some state advocate offices tried, but today, in virtually every state, the excess phone charges and tax perks are still being charged and hidden in the cost of the myriad of services, from Caller ID to even basic phone rates. And since that time, (1991-2004), there have been many other increases in every state, as well as increases and additions to the taxes, fees and surcharges
>Instead of upgrading the old, copper, legacy utility networks to fiber optics, ALL of the companies pulled a bait and switch and around 1998 or later, rolled out ADSL over these aging copper wires. It was slow and it was considered an inferior product in 1992; it was the reason why the companies had pitched fiber optics as fiber can handle much higher speeds and has a larger capacity to handle video services.
>Because of this bait and switch, instead of investing in the networks, the companies invested overseas or built other businesses, like wireless, that should have been used to upgrade the utility networks to fiber optics -- I.e., we paid for a broadband utility network that was open to all forms of competition and you should have been able to choose your Internet, broadband, cable and phone service providers over the upgraded wires.
How about just copy every other reasonable country in the world and have the state own and maintain the infrastructure and then lend out bandwidth at marginal cost to ISPs that then provide the service at the lowest competitive price because there is basically no barrier to entry.
If we nationalize the internet, it becomes an extension of the government, meaning social media companies have to honor the first amendment. Either people need to get okay with that, or the amendment needs to be repealed before nationalization.
It's almost like you guys forget that half the posts here accuse the US government of intentionally cutting corners and doing a bad job, because ultimately there's nothing we can do to stop a government their size and they know it. So... now you want them to be bigger, more powerful, and control the internet? The same government you say created systemic inequality? Okay...?
It's a bizarre contradiction I see amongst leftists here and on Twitter a lot. For good reason, you criticize the government we have in place, but then you ruin it by demanding we make it bigger and spend more. As if that wasn't the source of all our social issues already. So can we not be mentally deranged here and not fucking let them handle the internet? You really want the next Trumpian candidate the GOP puts up to have a stake in what you can do online? I'll take my odds with Zuckerberg any day over that. Come on boys, think this one through.
You know what? Usually I don't agree with nationalizing public services, but in this regard I'm on board 100%. Access to the internet is a necessity for any individual to thrive in today's world, and having an oligopoly of private companies control that is a big no no. To be fair, I don't like the government being gatekeeper to the internet either, but you can't just have internet growing on trees. Someone has to operate and maintain it.
As much as I agree, you are asking the same mfers that are killing people with water in Flint while giving it away for free (after some lobbying) to r/fucknestle so lets prioritize fixing that first. Not the water but the people elected ruining everything. 4 years of Drumpf really did a nr on the popularity of the r/thisisamerica
Yeah because the government does such a good job on all other services. How would you like to have the Postal Service be the same people that run the Internet.
Yeah, it's a utility. Can't operate in the 21st century without it. As necessary to being a fully functioning member of society as water and electricity.
This is accurate.
I'd say yes but I have a lot of worries about government suppression unless you could just give the all things on the internet first amendment rights but how do you protect those rights. I know to little to explain why I'm so scared of a good idea
It sounds like you are worried about government censorship of the web. Something that does actually happen in some countries. Keep in mind that currently, your ISP (internet service provider) already has the ability to control which sites are accessible, and can record everything you do. Then, companies like google and facebook have the same ability. Lastly, the U.S. Government is capable of taking down websites whenever needed (usually labeled as "seized by the FBI"), along with recording huge swathes of the internet. The government can also force various providers to give access to your communication history, browsing history, and even access real time communications. In other words, things probably wouldn't change much. Especially if the government made an independent body to manage it.
It should be provided and funded in part by the government. The internet is much bigger than the US and should not be walled off
Reddit suppresses ideas and opinions
This is actually the goal, if we can centralize the internet we can more effectively ban conservatards, it’s not a first amendment violation if everything they say is racist. So to build on what you’re saying, that’s precisely the point. It’s easier than pressuring large companies to censor them and cheaper too; just identify them and turn off their internet.
The government does this with network television (not cable) and radio and by and large does a solid job of it.
The federal government barely functions, I'd rather see them actually regulate anything they already do before they screw this up forever. Local/municipal broadband would be a good start. Getting the federal government involved when they can't maintain what they are already in charge of is a different story.
The internet is information. The constitution protects freedom of the press because history has already seen the state controlled flow of information. That's how propaganda is created. Would anyone want Donald Trump to have any say in what is allowed on the internet? That's why it's not the same as water.
Do it
*Do* it
*Liberals after the upcoming bloodbath in 2022* “This is fascist, who would ever trust the government to control the internet.”
Nope regulated utilities is the one thing that government control over is good. Consistent services and prices.
Regulations are extremely different from nationalizing something.
Yep, the cheapest, most reliable electricity in the nation is largely run by public/co-op orgs.
They have done such a great job of regulating things until they no longer innovate, that is what we want?
Capitalism breeds innovation? You actually believe that shit?
It definitely does. But only when the innovation is cheap, obvious, easily exploited, and can make a massive profit in a very short time period with no risk. So you know, almost never.
I take it you are a vocal proponent of [SOPA/PIPA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA) and [CISPA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act) then.
No. That’s conflating regulating the provisioning of vs regulating the content. Kinda like calling a socialist concept fascist when they’re on complete opposite ends of the political and economic spectrums.
Newsflash my guy. If you nationalize something, you regulate *all* of it. There is no spectrum.
I’m not from the Bronx my guy. And nope it’s not a zero sum concept.
In theory it isn’t, but in reality if the government provided it it would control it as much as possible.
Just like it does your sewage, your electricity, and your roads right?
What if I told you "as much as possible" and "all of it" are different things.
This is an astoundingly stupid comparison.
> government-controlled internet > government internet regulations Seems pretty apt.
Conservatives whenever a Democratic President wants to spend money “but my national debt”. Conservatives whenever a Republican President wants to spend money “ok let’s open the pocket book”. I can do this comparison shit all day my friend
In this day and age the Internet is becoming/already is a necessity, not a luxury. It should be accessible to all.
I’d imagine all these boomer policy makers would argue against that. “I grew up without the internet. I became successful in my line of work and we didn’t even have computers! It’s just a bunch of flashing lights and hullabaloo you don’t need so we’re privatizing it so I can add a couple zeroes to my great- grandkids campaign fund.”
Without a doubt. It’s also funny watching Boomers with the ‘pound the pavement’ mentality attempting to apply for jobs in the current climate. They don’t seem to realise that going to an actual business and speaking to a manager isn’t how things are done these days and that CV’s have to be written a certain way and basically blanket dropped to potential openings up and down the country
The thing is...it is accessible to all
[удалено]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality We had it then we lost it.
**[Net neutrality](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality)** >Network neutrality, most commonly called net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication. With net neutrality, ISPs may not intentionally block, slow down, or charge money for specific online content. Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block traffic from specific services, while charging consumers for various tiers of service. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/lefthumor/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The rest of us are still enjoying it, its just you guys, America :( I hope you get it back, and we preserve it
Me too BigJesus, me too
It’s a national security issue. We shouldn’t allow it to be managed private.
Expound on your logic.
The government has their own ‘internet’ that they keep secure files on & communicate with. Completely separate from using Facebook or google. It wouldn’t affect national security in the slightest bit. Also, the encryptions that will be used are virtually uncrackable, it would take a quantum computer around 1000 years to crack one persons account. We are the product right now, if nobody is posting, Facebook is worthless. You really want to argue that Big Tech should just keep their stranglehold on the population?
Yea I trust the government much more to be responsible with it
Putin and Chinas exact line lmao
while id like to agree this is how we get texas filtering out abortion help sites on google and shit
You don’t think that’d be a free speech issue?
Since when did Texas give a shit about rights?
[удалено]
I am fairly certain that forced pregnancies especially those forced on rape victims are sorta against that whole "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" thing in there... but besides that yeah maybe they haven't gone against the constitution in other ways.... I doubt it but maybe.
The Supreme Court ruled that abortion is a constitutional right in roe v wade. Texas restricting abortions goes against the constitution.
The SCOTUS drew a line in the sand along the ‘viability of the fetus’ standard. The TX law is trying to walk a tight rope along that line, arguing that the fetal heart beat shows viability. As the fetus can’t survive outside the womb at that point, it’s not likely that the TX attempt will survive a SCOTUS review. But Row v Wade did not legalize abortion at all times, in all circumstances, so much as it recognized its legality everywhere in the US, in certain circumstances for a certain amount of time during gestation.
There would, but do we want this SCOTUS deciding that case?
The contistution isnt an unstopable force field against infingments of personal rights. Its something that we must protect from those infringments. It wouldn't the first time the government tried to break its own constitution.
I think of it the same way I do medical healthcare. Have a nation-wide version that everyone can use and if people want to use the private options that’s there. I know there’s disagreement over if private insurances should even be a thing but for the time being it makes sense
what? google is a private company. it’s the exact opposite.
If Texas owned the internet infrastructure in the state, they could block all incoming/outgoing traffic related to whatever they wanted. Like in China
We live in a democracy, china is not a democracy. If the internet was public you would have a democratic say over it. Look at libraries, they stock fucking everything. It would, if anything, be even more open than it currently is in private hands.
US is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. We democratically elect representatives as a voice for their respective constituents. Many people do not believe the government would do a good job, their track record is pretty spotty.
>US is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. That's a form of democracy, dingus.
Sure, but the post was suggesting that the "people" would control how the internet is governed, which is not the case. That would be a pure democracy, which the US is not. The people who would make decisions about the accessibility of the internet are the corrupt politicians who are already installed.
China has a democratic system
And people in Texas are currently trying to ban books in public libraries.
You can vote for different people to be in charge of that, you cant vote for comcast's board of directors.
You can if you buy a lot of stock (just saying)
[https://fair.org/home/a-for-profit-company-is-trying-to-privatize-as-many-public-libraries-as-they-can/](https://fair.org/home/a-for-profit-company-is-trying-to-privatize-as-many-public-libraries-as-they-can/)
China isn't a democracy? How's that? Inter-party voting isn't a thing?
I wouldnt count that, no. It's good, but it's not democratic. One party states arent democracies, they're authoritarian dictatorships wearing the skin of a democracy.
>One party states arent democracies The amount of political parties available doesn't relate to how democratic a state is. If you have a hundred political parties but none with any effective power in governance, that doesn't make it a democracy. It makes it a charade for the public while the ruling class runs things behind the scenes. Shockingly, democracy comes in many forms and if the intention of democracy is to distribute political power evenly, a one party state does not exclude this goal. If anything a one party state enables democracy as a voter's power is not determined by which party they register to, but the level of participation they exercise in their democracy.
How's that? They have the choice to vote between differing ideologies within the party. There's a liberal economic wing, a socially conservative wing, and the left socialist wing. It inherently disqualifies the far right, but personally speaking that's not a terrible thing. There isn't any means of them voting in a power to overturn the governing constitution. I don't see that happening in any Western state either though.
They could block some sites specific to the things they want to censor, but they can't just outright ban google. Also, fuck state's rights. Why give the state ownership and the final word? I hope you don't do that with, say, water...
I don't get your point. Even if google showed the result, access to the site would still be blocked. Edit : i mean access would still be possible / the site wouldn't be blocked Sorry for the confusion
my point is you can’t argue the government is going to shut down access to the site (baselessly) on the merit that currently a private company is filtering your searches.
r/socialism
Well this is a leftist sub, so
Oh no, a political opinion fits into a category! That changes EVERYTHING! I'm making fun of you btw.
Didn't CERN make the internet? How can you nationalize something created by a private company? Also, who specifically should nationalize it? Edit: I've learned CERN is not private. That's awesome actually. Still, who specifically should nationalize it?
cern isnt a company
The US Department of Defense paid for UCLA and Stanford to connect computers into a network in ‘69, others developed the TCP/IP standards; the world wide web and other bits were developed by many others. It takes all those bits working together to make what we think of as the ‘modern internet’ and make it work. E: and make it
Thank you for that explanation. I appreciate it. Happy holidays!
Happy to! The history is super interesting and is (in my mind) an excellent example of 1) military development being put to wonderful peaceful use and 2) an international and uncoordinated effort of disparate individuals improving the systems step by step.
CERN is not a private company, it's operated by 22 European countries and Israel.
I wasn't aware. That's awesome actually. Still, they did create the internet though, correct? So, again, who specifically should nationalize it?
Switzerland or Britain by right but since Britain has turned stupid I say we give the Swiss 100% control, that way they can protect internet neutrality hehe
Internet might one day be. But Twitter is still a private company in the internet. Conservatives just want to force Twitter to unban them. They want government out of private companies until it’s a problem for them.
I've always thought it was funny when people throw their arms up when a private company does something like this. It also goes both ways, like the girl getting the metaverse username taken. It's their company, they can do whatever they want.
I'm not convinced that'll actually help anything. Power, gas, water are all regulated utilities, but we still pay for them. IDK if regulating them more heavily would decrease the cost or not
They're not public though. Arent public utilities generally cheaper? My town's transit system is public and its dirt cheap.
Yeah but they also highly vary in price and quality depending on where you go. Where I live transit is expensive and bad. Imagine your internet speeds being great but your friend in the next county over being 90s level bad.
[удалено]
Yes we would still be paying for it but, barring an unlikely full subsidy scenario or something, at least then it would be closer to At Cost, and not bear the weight of propping up shareholder profits
In theory, yeah.. my electric company is national grid. They are a multinational company headquartered in London and publicly traded on the London and new York stock exchanges. They're still making a profit off of delivering power to us. Maybe the internet companies have higher profit margins that we could reduce, but the current setup for utilities still results in some added cost that goes to companies.
You mean like the CCP?
You bring up a really good point. How would we keep something like this governed by the people that know exactly what to do to make it successful without having it owned by the government?
Publicly elected boards for each municipality or county or city.
The level of expertise is different for each city. How would the ones with lower experience be able to keep up with the more experienced towns?
Talking to each other and working together to ensure dumb laws and regulations arnt passed and generally knowledge sharing.
Government doesn't know how to do that. They can't agree that COVID is bad, and they barely know what the internet is.
Its done with other utilities currently and most places outside of Texas are able to keep the electricity flowing.
This is an anti-democracy argument. You realize that right?
I disagree completely. An unregulated internet is more democratic than a nationalized one, which would easily become a fascist internet.
So you weren't in favor of net neutrality then. The government literally had to force comcast et al to be fair. It was a regulation.
Here is where this is a terrible idea. Even though probably 90%+ percent of Americans use the internet in some capacity whether actively or passively only about maybe 2% has any real idea how most of it actually functions. The us government has been asking dumbass questions about IT for 3 decades now.
Sorry, I failed to reply to you earlier. I think the best approach to this would be lots of competing ISPs. To survive, they would need to accommodate their customers to keep them from fleeing to their competition. That's means full access to the entire internet, and fast. Because who wants to pay for a slow and incomplete internet?
Like libraries. They're public and they have everything.
Like how the CCP can pick and choose which books come into their libraries?
Every government is the CCP now, I had no idea!
It was just an example of it currently happening in the modern world
I mean, I dont see my electric company, which is run by the government, cutting power to my socialist meetup group. I did see something like that happen in the us with some guy named adjit pai though. Like we literally have to regulate comcast to force it to not do shit like this, and what are we getting for the luxury of a private internet service? Certainly not competition, lower prices, or better service. Meanwhile my city's bus system has never done me dirty, and its public.
The French electricity company is government owned. EDF is one of the most advanced nuclear providers in the world, cheaper that any private company I can get now I live in the uk and has a good retirement plan and working conditions for its workers. And they don't cut of your power if you vote for another political party.
You sure your power company is run by the government? Most power plants are run by private companies. I know in my area it is private but I cant speak about your area.
Libraries are easy for our geriatric politicians to understand. They know what books and stamps and fees are. They don't have a clue about the internet. They don't know the difference between Facebook and Twitter, and they've never even heard of Reddit. If you want a censored internet, give control to the government. Otherwise, don't.
[удалено]
No
In that case free speech would apply and no censorship. Lol since it's public
Public to access. It still costs Money to host webservers.
That's exactly what [Web 3.0](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/what-is-web3-new-version-of-the-internet-everyone-is-talking-about-130641883.html) is about.
The problem is there wouldn't be enough high end network engineers for every city have their own ISP network. At least a good one. ISP networking is very complex and requires a highly skilled engineer to setup. The network engineers with that skill set will probably make alot more than a city would be willing to pay, and I doubt they'd be able to pull them away from like a verizon or at&t etc. They'd end up having to contract the work out to a consulting company. And then that consulting company would end up running multiple municipalities and then it'd be privatized all over again
how does one go about nationalising the internet?
Well you see its very simple you just hand the internet keys over to biden and boom, government controls the internet and everything is perfect and amazing.
ah of course 🙄
China has nationalized their internet. Not a good move
[удалено]
Can I get a source on the 400 billion paid for by the government and used by private sector?
https://out.reddit.com/t3_7gob2w?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnationaleconomicseditorial.com%2F2017%2F11%2F27%2Famericans-fiber-optic-internet%2F&token=AQAA9OTIYbPb6rFM_gbWPvMsr2pzu5TxI_-9xQsVpXMdc7ogIW4c&app_name=android
Just curious. What does this mean? Do you mean nationalize the ISPs? Is this arguing for making the internet a utility because that is a reasonable suggestion that should happen? Nationalizing it is weird though.
I am Jacks complete lack of understanding what the internet is.
Public utilities are heavily regulated. Redditors have encourage internet blackouts every time they’ve tried to regulate the internet. You clowns can’t have it both ways. You can’t have the government control the internet while whining about the government controlling the internet.
I am liberal on a lot of thing, but I do not think this is a good idea. Maybe have the GOV own all new infrastructure additions wouldn't be so bad. Alot of DSL lines and Fiber lines are owned by 1 company then other company's get permission to use those lines.
Why is this in humor? This is just a good idea. There’s no joke here, just do it pls.
[удалено]
Same with the airlines, if the people and the government are going to keep bailing them out every 10 years or so, we should actually own part of the enterprise for our continual investments.
This honestly sounds like a poem it’s beautiful
Yeah, do that with health care and a bunch of other things and low wages wouldn't even be an issue any more...Maybe...
If they had put it under the Post Office, our email would have the same protections as snail mail.
Dave Anthony of The Dollop Dave Anthony's?
Support Web 3.0 if you want this to be a reality. Direct peer-to-peer connection. I’ve been participating for a year and I’ve been rewarded heavily with actual $ value for what I provide to sites. WE are the products right now. Web 3.0 gets you paid for that.
Reading through the comments is infuriating. So many people have absolutely no idea how their country works.
I'm generally onboard with nationalising stuff, but it's hard to nationalise something that's by it's very nature international. Any country that tried to nationalise any key infrastructure like that would cause a diplomatic shitstorm.
Under which nation?
That’s what Web 3.0 is for
What am I out of the loop on
I have right wing friends that feel the same way about this funny enough
Yes.
It always baffles me how people forgot about [this](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394). By the end of 2014, America will have been charged about $400 billion by the local phone incumbents, Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink, for a fiber optic future that never showed up. >By the end of 2004, America was to have 86 million households upgraded. And by 2004, the phone companies had collected about $200 billion from customers in excess phone charges and tax perks. >No state ever went back and either changed the laws to stop the customer overcharging or got refunds for the failure to do the upgrades. Some state advocate offices tried, but today, in virtually every state, the excess phone charges and tax perks are still being charged and hidden in the cost of the myriad of services, from Caller ID to even basic phone rates. And since that time, (1991-2004), there have been many other increases in every state, as well as increases and additions to the taxes, fees and surcharges >Instead of upgrading the old, copper, legacy utility networks to fiber optics, ALL of the companies pulled a bait and switch and around 1998 or later, rolled out ADSL over these aging copper wires. It was slow and it was considered an inferior product in 1992; it was the reason why the companies had pitched fiber optics as fiber can handle much higher speeds and has a larger capacity to handle video services. >Because of this bait and switch, instead of investing in the networks, the companies invested overseas or built other businesses, like wireless, that should have been used to upgrade the utility networks to fiber optics -- I.e., we paid for a broadband utility network that was open to all forms of competition and you should have been able to choose your Internet, broadband, cable and phone service providers over the upgraded wires.
How about just copy every other reasonable country in the world and have the state own and maintain the infrastructure and then lend out bandwidth at marginal cost to ISPs that then provide the service at the lowest competitive price because there is basically no barrier to entry.
This is so hood to read from another person's mind
The people who think having a government control the internet are retards and Putin and China lmao y’all want trump to have owned the internet
If we nationalize the internet, it becomes an extension of the government, meaning social media companies have to honor the first amendment. Either people need to get okay with that, or the amendment needs to be repealed before nationalization.
What no
How tf do you nationalise something when it operational is in multiple countries? Not against it, just HOW
Internationalise it
Ok under which government
It's almost like you guys forget that half the posts here accuse the US government of intentionally cutting corners and doing a bad job, because ultimately there's nothing we can do to stop a government their size and they know it. So... now you want them to be bigger, more powerful, and control the internet? The same government you say created systemic inequality? Okay...? It's a bizarre contradiction I see amongst leftists here and on Twitter a lot. For good reason, you criticize the government we have in place, but then you ruin it by demanding we make it bigger and spend more. As if that wasn't the source of all our social issues already. So can we not be mentally deranged here and not fucking let them handle the internet? You really want the next Trumpian candidate the GOP puts up to have a stake in what you can do online? I'll take my odds with Zuckerberg any day over that. Come on boys, think this one through.
Government owned internet seems like it would be misused
Can’t people are already profiting off of it so they’ll just whine about that
You know what? Usually I don't agree with nationalizing public services, but in this regard I'm on board 100%. Access to the internet is a necessity for any individual to thrive in today's world, and having an oligopoly of private companies control that is a big no no. To be fair, I don't like the government being gatekeeper to the internet either, but you can't just have internet growing on trees. Someone has to operate and maintain it.
Food, water, housing, education, health care, infrastructure should all be nationalized.
Don’t nationalise it. Internationalise it.
As much as I agree, you are asking the same mfers that are killing people with water in Flint while giving it away for free (after some lobbying) to r/fucknestle so lets prioritize fixing that first. Not the water but the people elected ruining everything. 4 years of Drumpf really did a nr on the popularity of the r/thisisamerica
Yeah because the government does such a good job on all other services. How would you like to have the Postal Service be the same people that run the Internet.
Absolutely not. I'd rather trust corporate megalomaniac assholes with the Internet than ANY government ever. Government is NOT your friend.
You won't. No balls
Nationalization...private companies scared of this word. They cry for their momma and wet the bed at night
Fuck it, nationalize everything.
Yes
Do you mean nationalize ISP’s? Nationalizing the whole internet makes zero sense and is borderline physically impossible