4 ms·

Before civil labor laws that was like saying you can chose not to work at the local factory/sweatshop. What we need is blanket protection from the federal gover

Before civil labor laws that was like saying you can chose not to work at the local factory/sweatshop. What we need is blanket protection from the federal government akin to the civil labor laws that grew out of the industrial revolution. We need digital privacy, portability and general freedom laws enacted by congress to set the playing field level between consumers and producers for this next revolution, the digital/social/mobile revolution. It is not enough to say "vote with your wallet". Our liberties are being encroached from every angle in the digital sphere. Virtually every major corporation that plays in this space is screwing the consumer one way or another when it comes to these basic, common sense rights we should all have. Why is it that myspace and facebook and google and apple and amazon all have their own twisted, difficult to understand, legalize terms of service and privacy policies? Where is the government intervention, who loves to stick it's nose in everyones business, when it matters?

lionhearted 16y ago
> What we need is blanket protection from the federal government akin to the civil labor laws that grew out of the industrial revolution. I don't want to be protected from doing voluntary transactions by the federal government - they have a pretty bad track record of making citizens' lives worse when they do that. And besides, laws like this are started as a shield, but eventually get turned into a sword that's corrupted and hijacked by entrenched powers in the various industries. It's the nature of the current political situation with lobbying and a public that cares about the hot button issue, but doesn't follow up on the regulations a few years later to see how it turned out. Once people no longer care, the lobbying starts and you get all kinds of asinine things. Thanks but no thanks - the federal government isn't the answer.
- siculars 16y ago
  Hey, I'm no interventionist. Nevertheless, we have a government, we have laws and we have certain protection enshrined by law. I think this is a perfect opportunity for the feds to do something right. Why can't my data be my data, backed up by law? Why is it that I can't get my data back from facebook anyway and anytime I want to? Why do I have to rely on the benevolence of facebook? Replace facebook with any other social site or entity. I can get my medical record, by law - not based on which doctor I see. I can get my credit report, by law - from all the agencies. I can get a prospectus from a publicly traded company, by law - from all of them, not just those that think it is a competitive advantage to do so. Cars need to adhere to certain minimum emissions standards, by law - not just because their engineers care about the environment. I can go on all day. Do you think that any of these private/public entities would provide such niceties on their own volition? Perhaps some. But why do we need to rely on their whim. Again, as for protection from voluntary transactions I agree with you. I want to smoke and drink all day till it kills me without the government being involved. Nevertheless, both smoking and drinking are regulated and for good measure. Who can disagree with that? At some point in the not to distant future everyone will have a smart phone. Everyone will be on some sort of social network. Everyone will use Google or an equivalent. Everyone will have at least one device that can track their location on their body most of the time. There is no feasible way that this will not be regulated. We can only hope that when it is regulated it is done as a shield and not a sword.
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    > I can go on all day. Sure, and you picked decent ones, but you left off all the inane bureaucracy like Sarbanes-Oxley with the time, hassle, and money it wastes. > Do you think that any of these private/public entities would provide such niceties on their own volition? Perhaps some. But why do we need to rely on their whim. Consumers have more control over companies than they do over the government. It's a lot easier to quit Coca-Cola than it is to get the government to stop subsidizing corn syrup. The corn subsidies are incredibly unpopular, yet persist, whereas I quit Coca-Cola and now don't drink it. Problem solved by individual choice. > I want to smoke and drink all day till it kills me without the government being involved. Nevertheless, both smoking and drinking are regulated and for good measure. Who can disagree with that? Well, me, for starters. Should you be able to smoke marijuana in your home? Choose your own medical treatments and practioners? How about not letting a English doctor practice in the States for... no good reason? Does that bother you? Should you be able to eat fatty food? It's your life, I have no right to vote to place controls on it. And you have no right to vote to place controls on me. It might happen, but if it does, it's wrong. > At some point in the not to distant future everyone will have a smart phone. If it matters to you, choose the most open options and protect what you share. Be intelligent and use your own discretion. I believe in your capacity to make good decisions for yourself, I believe you're smarter and more well-equipped to make the right choices for you than politicians, lobbyists, and bureaucrats. Likewise, I want to be able to make my own choices about my own life, and the idea of well-meaning politicians, lobbyists, and bureaucrats affecting my options is a very unpleasant idea. > There is no feasible way that this will not be regulated. We can only hope that when it is regulated it is done as a shield and not a sword. See, I'm not going to hope - I'm going to look at track records. Specifically, USG's domestic policies over the last 50 years or so. It's not a pretty track record.

lionhearted 16y ago

> What we need is blanket protection from the federal government akin to the civil labor laws that grew out of the industrial revolution. I don't want to be protected from doing voluntary transactions by the federal government - they have a pretty bad track record of making citizens' lives worse when they do that. And besides, laws like this are started as a shield, but eventually get turned into a sword that's corrupted and hijacked by entrenched powers in the various industries. It's the nature of the current political situation with lobbying and a public that cares about the hot button issue, but doesn't follow up on the regulations a few years later to see how it turned out. Once people no longer care, the lobbying starts and you get all kinds of asinine things. Thanks but no thanks - the federal government isn't the answer.

siculars 16y ago
Hey, I'm no interventionist. Nevertheless, we have a government, we have laws and we have certain protection enshrined by law. I think this is a perfect opportunity for the feds to do something right. Why can't my data be my data, backed up by law? Why is it that I can't get my data back from facebook anyway and anytime I want to? Why do I have to rely on the benevolence of facebook? Replace facebook with any other social site or entity. I can get my medical record, by law - not based on which doctor I see. I can get my credit report, by law - from all the agencies. I can get a prospectus from a publicly traded company, by law - from all of them, not just those that think it is a competitive advantage to do so. Cars need to adhere to certain minimum emissions standards, by law - not just because their engineers care about the environment. I can go on all day. Do you think that any of these private/public entities would provide such niceties on their own volition? Perhaps some. But why do we need to rely on their whim. Again, as for protection from voluntary transactions I agree with you. I want to smoke and drink all day till it kills me without the government being involved. Nevertheless, both smoking and drinking are regulated and for good measure. Who can disagree with that? At some point in the not to distant future everyone will have a smart phone. Everyone will be on some sort of social network. Everyone will use Google or an equivalent. Everyone will have at least one device that can track their location on their body most of the time. There is no feasible way that this will not be regulated. We can only hope that when it is regulated it is done as a shield and not a sword.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > I can go on all day. Sure, and you picked decent ones, but you left off all the inane bureaucracy like Sarbanes-Oxley with the time, hassle, and money it wastes. > Do you think that any of these private/public entities would provide such niceties on their own volition? Perhaps some. But why do we need to rely on their whim. Consumers have more control over companies than they do over the government. It's a lot easier to quit Coca-Cola than it is to get the government to stop subsidizing corn syrup. The corn subsidies are incredibly unpopular, yet persist, whereas I quit Coca-Cola and now don't drink it. Problem solved by individual choice. > I want to smoke and drink all day till it kills me without the government being involved. Nevertheless, both smoking and drinking are regulated and for good measure. Who can disagree with that? Well, me, for starters. Should you be able to smoke marijuana in your home? Choose your own medical treatments and practioners? How about not letting a English doctor practice in the States for... no good reason? Does that bother you? Should you be able to eat fatty food? It's your life, I have no right to vote to place controls on it. And you have no right to vote to place controls on me. It might happen, but if it does, it's wrong. > At some point in the not to distant future everyone will have a smart phone. If it matters to you, choose the most open options and protect what you share. Be intelligent and use your own discretion. I believe in your capacity to make good decisions for yourself, I believe you're smarter and more well-equipped to make the right choices for you than politicians, lobbyists, and bureaucrats. Likewise, I want to be able to make my own choices about my own life, and the idea of well-meaning politicians, lobbyists, and bureaucrats affecting my options is a very unpleasant idea. > There is no feasible way that this will not be regulated. We can only hope that when it is regulated it is done as a shield and not a sword. See, I'm not going to hope - I'm going to look at track records. Specifically, USG's domestic policies over the last 50 years or so. It's not a pretty track record.