4 ms·

Then don't do business with terrible companies that invade your privacy.

Karunamon 10y ago
Okay. I'll become less effective at my job, because the only search engine worth a darn is the second largest dataminer in the world. In fact, scratch that, I won't even have internet access, because the ISP datamines me. Now I'm out of work and homeless. No bank accounts either. The only stuff near me are instances of corporate banks that datamine my spending habits all to hell. Same for credit cards. When you figure out how to do this "just don't do business with companies you don't like" thing in a way that doesn't turn me into a homeless pariah, please let me know.
- snickerbockers 10y ago
  >Okay. I'll become less effective at my job, because the only search engine worth a darn is the second largest dataminer in the world. Clearly the cost of losing your privacy is worth it to you because choose not to use competing services like duckduckgo that will respect your privacy. With respects to banks and ISPs, the major players in those industries support overregulation because they know it prevents smaller competitors from rising up and taking their business away with a superior product.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    Probably because I have a concrete notion of what "my privacy" entails, and I consciously don't place "things i'm typing in a search box to $company" in the "things $company shouldn't know about" box. On top of all that, there's the functional aspect as well. DDG's results plain and simply suck, and using a search engine out of principle is purely an exercise in self flagellation if I can't accomplish the goal I set out to do.
folz 10y ago
In many parts of the country, consumers don't have the luxury of choice between ISPs. Heck, I live in the Bay Area and my two options are between Comcast Xfinity and Comcast for Business. (I went for the latter because they have slightly stronger promises around my personal information.) I have to do business with Comcast because I need internet service, and I have no other reasonable source for it.
alphabettsy 10y ago
Enough with this crap, many places have one provider to choose from. This is especially true in cities where many live in apartments or condos, and also in rural areas where the cost of build-out is very high.
- snickerbockers 10y ago
  That's because government regulations create artificial entry barriers that preclude a free and open market. It's foolhardy to believe that adding more regulations will solve anything.
  - s73ver 10y ago
    Starting an ISP is incredibly expensive, even if you didn't have regulations. If you got rid of all ISP regulations tomorrow, you would be lucky if in 3 years you'd start to see competition. And most places wouldn't be valuable enough to have more than one provider. When you argue for getting rid of these regulations, you're basically saying that a bunch of people don't deserve quality, neutral internet.
    - snickerbockers 10y ago
      I've been to rural areas, I'm well aware that millions of people live without reliable high-speed internet connections all over the United States, and those regulations you support haven't fixed it. Meanwhile, there are poor people in India who aren't going to get internet access because they can't afford it themselves, and net neutrality legislation has removed the profit-motive that would have incentivized private corporations to provide it to them for free. And net neutrality advocates are cheering it on like it's a huge victory that they've deprived all these people of modern technology. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/08/india-facebook-free-basics-net-neutrality-row https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/08/india-fac...
      - alphabettsy 10y ago
        How about making your argument without shifting it to the other side of the globe. The brand new regulations that have been fought by the same people introducing this bill haven't been effective? Duh, they weren't even in existence long enough. Sure the best way would be for our lawmakers to actually make laws protecting privacy and providing basic consumer protections rather than relying on the FCC, but Congress is almost completely dysfunctional.
dang 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14248490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14248490 and marked it off-topic.

Okay. I'll become less effective at my job, because the only search engine worth a darn is the second largest dataminer in the world. In fact, scratch that, I won't even have internet access, because the ISP datamines me. Now I'm out of work and homeless. No bank accounts either. The only stuff near me are instances of corporate banks that datamine my spending habits all to hell. Same for credit cards. When you figure out how to do this "just don't do business with companies you don't like" thing in a way that doesn't turn me into a homeless pariah, please let me know.

snickerbockers 10y ago
>Okay. I'll become less effective at my job, because the only search engine worth a darn is the second largest dataminer in the world. Clearly the cost of losing your privacy is worth it to you because choose not to use competing services like duckduckgo that will respect your privacy. With respects to banks and ISPs, the major players in those industries support overregulation because they know it prevents smaller competitors from rising up and taking their business away with a superior product.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Probably because I have a concrete notion of what "my privacy" entails, and I consciously don't place "things i'm typing in a search box to $company" in the "things $company shouldn't know about" box. On top of all that, there's the functional aspect as well. DDG's results plain and simply suck, and using a search engine out of principle is purely an exercise in self flagellation if I can't accomplish the goal I set out to do.

folz 10y ago

In many parts of the country, consumers don't have the luxury of choice between ISPs. Heck, I live in the Bay Area and my two options are between Comcast Xfinity and Comcast for Business. (I went for the latter because they have slightly stronger promises around my personal information.) I have to do business with Comcast because I need internet service, and I have no other reasonable source for it.

alphabettsy 10y ago

Enough with this crap, many places have one provider to choose from. This is especially true in cities where many live in apartments or condos, and also in rural areas where the cost of build-out is very high.

snickerbockers 10y ago
That's because government regulations create artificial entry barriers that preclude a free and open market. It's foolhardy to believe that adding more regulations will solve anything.
- s73ver 10y ago
  Starting an ISP is incredibly expensive, even if you didn't have regulations. If you got rid of all ISP regulations tomorrow, you would be lucky if in 3 years you'd start to see competition. And most places wouldn't be valuable enough to have more than one provider. When you argue for getting rid of these regulations, you're basically saying that a bunch of people don't deserve quality, neutral internet.
  - snickerbockers 10y ago
    I've been to rural areas, I'm well aware that millions of people live without reliable high-speed internet connections all over the United States, and those regulations you support haven't fixed it. Meanwhile, there are poor people in India who aren't going to get internet access because they can't afford it themselves, and net neutrality legislation has removed the profit-motive that would have incentivized private corporations to provide it to them for free. And net neutrality advocates are cheering it on like it's a huge victory that they've deprived all these people of modern technology. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/08/india-facebook-free-basics-net-neutrality-row https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/08/india-fac...
    - alphabettsy 10y ago
      How about making your argument without shifting it to the other side of the globe. The brand new regulations that have been fought by the same people introducing this bill haven't been effective? Duh, they weren't even in existence long enough. Sure the best way would be for our lawmakers to actually make laws protecting privacy and providing basic consumer protections rather than relying on the FCC, but Congress is almost completely dysfunctional.

dang 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14248490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14248490 and marked it off-topic.