3 ms·
>In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access. And that government is elected by the people, right? Which me
by bb88 9y ago
>In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access.
And that government is elected by the people, right? Which means they could make this an election issue and vote candidates that don't support monopolies, right?
I don't understand what part of my statement you're arguing with.
- iMerNibor 9y agoThis doesnt work well in practice though. Most people don't have the grasp on the technicalities to even be able to make the decision to vote for a specific candidates because their internet access is sub-par Not to mention if you vote for someone you also get all the other things that candidate aligns with, not just better internet. (not super sure how voting on city/state level works in the us, but it should be accurate enough)
- larkeith 9y agoThat would be less of a problem if most US elections weren't duopolies as well.
- ataturk 9y agoPlus the agitprop--the media hates the Internet and always depicts it as an accomplice in crimes. So the "real" Internet would be portrayed as the dark web, full of unseemly crooks, gangsters, child molesters, etc. You wanting "full Internet" would imply that you're a pedophile. And you're not a pedo, are you?