498
this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
498 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
59416 readers
2765 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
what a bunch of low life jerks.
they can give millions in subsidies direct to corporations, but a mild discount in internet services for poor people requires incredible, roadblock worthy proof of obvious numbers for zero reason. theyre just assholes.
I would like to propose an alternative solution: Force broadband providers to offer low cost service to families that need it. Don't subsidize it, just force it.
Internet connections cost next to nothing to maintain. The telecoms can afford it.
I like the sentiment, but I don't trust the government to run anything efficiently or productively
As a Texan, I 100% assure you that I fully understand the ramifications of commoditizing public services. I was cold with the rest of them, while Can-cruz was slipping away to vacation.
I just think that placing the federal government in charge of building, maintaining, and upgrading internet infrastructure would have lasting negative ramifications in just about every way.
The though above (in a sister comment to the one i replied to) about regulations requiring an affordable option (maybe one that could be further subsidized for parents with school age children, etc) is much more palatable to me.
have you looked into Calyx? They have a pricing model that costs less because they are a 501c3 nonprofit
I have no doubt they can do it.
I don't think they should be in control of our communication though. I don't trust them with my privacy or not to use it to exert political control over the people.
I want regulations. A government willing to set rules and to enforce those rules.
[deleted]
The problem here is neither can really be trusted long term. The main advantage I see to governments is that there would be forced transparency.
As someone who has worked in government and private industries of all sizes let me tell you the takeaway from my experience: Only organization size matters. The only exception is in the "small stuff":
Big business and big government are both extremely slow and wasteful but in different ways. Big government wastes time and money on simple things that should be cheap but because of various laws and regulations must adhere to regulations of all sorts they end up being expensive (and these regulations often don't keep up with the times). This also slows everything down because you have to wait for the stuff to pass muster before you can use it most of the time (no matter what that thing is... From simple paper products to chairs to industrial equipment to desks to rocket engines etc you name it). This often results in people having to wait (sitting on their asses while still getting paid).
Big business wastes money on 3rd party tools and services that are often completely unnecessary. Usually because the powers that be "have always done things that way." They also waste money by being really, really bad at project management. This is the big one: At any big company something like 9 out of 10 IT projects are considered failures because they just keep going forward (with the project) no matter what. So they often end up with something that needs to be maintained/replaced and ends up becoming a regular, long term expense.
Big business isn't usually corrupt but they will spend loads and loads of money lobbying to make it easier for them to extract profit from whatever it is that they do. Safety, ethics, and things like the general well-being of society be damned. They have no morals except those codified in law whereas the people in huge government organizations are very visible to the people in general and know they have to act ethically or they could get in big trouble (and there's whole entities who's job it is to watch them for bad behavior and inefficiencies).
Related: There's never "too much" or "too little" regulation. There's just good regulations and bad regulations. Anyone who says regulations are bad or insinuates that they're "job killing" is looking to mislead you.
I'll take my chances. At least I can theoretically vote for the people in government.
That's exactly why they're fighting it -- every dollar they give to poor people is a dollar less they can give to rich people.
That's what they think, or at least that's what they want you to think. Every study has shown that every dollar you give to anyone below the 40th percentile returns more than a dollar to the economy. The lower on the totem pole, the more it grows the economy. The opposite is also true. For every dollar you give the top 10 percent, 70 cents or less goes back into the economy.
The more they give the poor, the richer they would get, but the money isn't the point. Cruelty is. They want to cause as much harm as they can get away with before we whip out the trebuchets and guillotines.
But that risks poors being less poor and exploitable. It's ultimately about the control.
They'd keep the control if they gave the poor the resources they need. That doesn't upset the balance of power, it just grows the economy to the size it needs to be for everyone to thrive. Control is already secured. Cruelty is the point.