When not in real life, I spend my time here.
followed tags: 11
followed domains: 3
badges given: 57 of 97
member for: 2313 days
Yeah but you know as well as anyone that not all collapses are created equal. Lehman's cap was $60 billion, and their collapse triggered paralysis. FB collapse would be painful, but not catastrophic. The market might have a shit for, but it wouldn't cause a decade long sluggish economy. It might even prompt us to reevaluate our priorities.
- The big tech companies are too big to fail, too complicated to be parsed or regulated, and too integral to business, the economy, and day-to-day life.
Totally disagree here. If Facebook failed, some investors would lose money. Nothing else would happen. In that sense, it would create a small but noticable ripple through the economy that we would recovery from almost instantly. Banks are too big to fail, because of their importance to credit markets. I'm convinced that most situation media companies are not a value add to the economy (at least no where close to what their market caps suggest). I would riot in the streets if the government bailed any of them out.
"Scientists". Lol. They should have to write "psychologists" or "social scientists" in the title to make sure you don't actually read anything into the findings.
I get that you were trying to make a rhetorical point. It's just that the rhetoric doesn't hold up. When free and honest debate was allowed (philosophic and scientific), the white supremacists lost. So your point was the opposite of what your thought it was. FWIW, I think a lot of ideas on the valley are dumb and even dangerous. That said, there's no idea that that's too dangerous to parse.
There's a reason humor goes it the window in totalitarian regimes. To laugh at oneself is to make an admission that one isn't omnipotent. Free inquiry (as opposed to limitless free speech) is paramount in keeping a free society. Talking through dangerous ideas will expose them.
Edit: But I agree with you that voicing your opinions carries responsibility, and that if you want to voice an opinion that people find off putting, dangerous, or immoral, that you better have thick skin. There's no such thing as consequence-free speech.
I'm not talking about how a bill becomes law; I'm talking about the functional role that rule and regulation making has taken over from actual legislation. Congress has collectively decided over the last several decades that they would rather delegate to the Executive branch than make hard choices. The FCC shouldn't be making choices about neutrality. Congress should. Three same can be said for all sorts of ways in which our lives are regulated. Citizens have close to no recourse for challenging regulations given the nature or Chevron deference. Our only recourse for challenging most law is via elections, and the FCC (and the whole alphabet soup) is only marginally responsive to election cycles. When Congress doesn't make choices, neither can we.
- Is slavery a "wacky idea"?
No. The "wacky idea" was that black people are genetically equivalent to white people. Many people were killed in support of that idea, which we all now recognize to be true.
Edit: Laws were passed prohibiting teaching black people to read precisely so that idea couldn't be challenged by open debate.
Beyond any analysis of expenses or litigation, the real question is why is this the purview of the FCC? It shouldn't be. The FCC doesn't and ought not to make laws. Congress has decided that they'd rather not make laws on complicated topics, because it makes them look bad. We can change this by voting for people with a conscience.
What we talk about when we talk about net neutrality: competition. That's the root of the issue. This debate would be moot if we enforced antitrust laws with any teeth. In fact, in a real competitive landscape, we might even be better off without neutrality rules, because provider A could offer a neutral connection while provider B may want to offer 4k Netflix at no additional charge or something. Unfortunately, since we don't have that, and can't have that without any real antitrust enforcement (which has all but lapsed in America), this is a shitty choice. My guess is that it won't affect as much as doomsayers are predicting, but we need to vote these pricks out of office to put this choice where is should be anyway: Congress.