3 ms·
I'd say the telco's have essentially no influence over the content they transmit, and not just that: there are laws to ensure they don't get any. As to the hum
by emn13 9y ago
I'd say the telco's have essentially no influence over the content they transmit, and not just that: there are laws to ensure they don't get any.
As to the human rights: there's no point in spending a lot of money deceiving ourselves; better not to pretend and face up to the fact there's a problem, than to delegate it to a legal system that will simply make matters worse. I'm not objecting in principle to a judicial solution; I just don't see how that has a hope in hell of doing more good than harm.
I agree this kind of law is likely to cause collateral damage, but I don't believe the collateral damage is going to be worse than the alternative. But it's clearly not ideal, sure! But the point really should be: what's the alternative?
I don't think there are any simple, politically acceptable alternatives. I mean, you could try to turn em into common carrier's or the like, or break up the companies, but that's all fairly extreme - try getting that past the lobbying.