4 ms·

Explanation: you have not even done a bare minimum of attention or research on a pivotal internet-freedom issue that has been slow-boiling over the past 3 month

by paulmd 9y ago

Explanation: you have not even done a bare minimum of attention or research on a pivotal internet-freedom issue that has been slow-boiling over the past 3 months and you are still weighing in as if your opinion is informed (let alone intellectually significant) in any respect whatsoever. It's not like it's a real deep and multi-faceted issue or anything here, you just didn't bother to do even a bare minimum of research. Maybe consider doing the google before weighing in on a major issue before demanding that it be spoon-fed to you. This sort of post is actually subtly demeaning to everyone else on this forum and lowers the level of discussion here. Try to elevate it instead.

djschnei 9y ago
Yup, I don't hold your opinion so I am uninformed. Asked for your POV, but I'm too dumb to even attempt to explain it to. Must revert to personal slights and putdowns. Ahhhh, politics in 2017.
- paulmd 9y ago
  Joke's on me, you were only pretending to be an idiot! You were actually just a sealioning libertarian all along!
  - djschnei 9y ago
    Dude, I am trying to understand your POV. F&$%# me right? People paying more for something that costs more to provide seems completely logical to me. The anti-competitive nature of the regional monopolies isn't fair and turns all the normal rules on their heads, I understand that. I wish we would fix that rather than regulating the monopolies.
    - wtallis 9y ago
      > I wish we would fix that rather than regulating the monopolies. See, that's the kind of bullshit that makes it hard to tell whether you're honestly misinformed, or disingenuous. The ISPs at issue are the ones providing last-mile connectivity. That's a textbook example of a natural monopoly. You can't make it not a natural monopoly. The free market will never settle on a strategy of providing competition in the form of multiple parallel and competing cables along every residential street and driveway. Regulation of the inevitable monopolies is the only solution that doesn't completely ignore reality and basic economic concepts. There's no alternative that can be expected to be at all effective.
oreo81 9y ago
This is r/Iamverysmart material. Wow.
- djschnei 9y ago
  Seriously! haha
- paulmd 9y ago
  OP disagrees with the concept of natural monopolies because he's deep down the libertarian rabbit-hole, but instead of just coming out and saying it he phrases it as a question and expects people to explain the basics of the concept to him so he can obtusely disagree at every step. It doesn't really do us any good to have a 101-level discussion of microecon and market failures on every single topic. It just happens that this is a topic where you can't even pretend there are two sides to it, and it's one that has been discussed to death over the past couple months, so the bad faith is pretty transparent. (the next stage of sealioning: "woah how dare you ascribe bad faith to my totally legitimate attempts to grok this issue, I totally would have agreed with you if you had just responded nicely but maybe there is something to this whole internet-fast-lanes thing after all!")

by paulmd 9y ago

djschnei 9y ago

Yup, I don't hold your opinion so I am uninformed. Asked for your POV, but I'm too dumb to even attempt to explain it to. Must revert to personal slights and putdowns. Ahhhh, politics in 2017.

paulmd 9y ago
Joke's on me, you were only pretending to be an idiot! You were actually just a sealioning libertarian all along!
- djschnei 9y ago
  Dude, I am trying to understand your POV. F&$%# me right? People paying more for something that costs more to provide seems completely logical to me. The anti-competitive nature of the regional monopolies isn't fair and turns all the normal rules on their heads, I understand that. I wish we would fix that rather than regulating the monopolies.
  - wtallis 9y ago
    > I wish we would fix that rather than regulating the monopolies. See, that's the kind of bullshit that makes it hard to tell whether you're honestly misinformed, or disingenuous. The ISPs at issue are the ones providing last-mile connectivity. That's a textbook example of a natural monopoly. You can't make it not a natural monopoly. The free market will never settle on a strategy of providing competition in the form of multiple parallel and competing cables along every residential street and driveway. Regulation of the inevitable monopolies is the only solution that doesn't completely ignore reality and basic economic concepts. There's no alternative that can be expected to be at all effective.

oreo81 9y ago

This is r/Iamverysmart material. Wow.

djschnei 9y ago
Seriously! haha
paulmd 9y ago
OP disagrees with the concept of natural monopolies because he's deep down the libertarian rabbit-hole, but instead of just coming out and saying it he phrases it as a question and expects people to explain the basics of the concept to him so he can obtusely disagree at every step. It doesn't really do us any good to have a 101-level discussion of microecon and market failures on every single topic. It just happens that this is a topic where you can't even pretend there are two sides to it, and it's one that has been discussed to death over the past couple months, so the bad faith is pretty transparent. (the next stage of sealioning: "woah how dare you ascribe bad faith to my totally legitimate attempts to grok this issue, I totally would have agreed with you if you had just responded nicely but maybe there is something to this whole internet-fast-lanes thing after all!")