4 ms·
I assume you are talking about the US. Seems like a pretty reasonable investment if you cut some military funding or put a small tax on the richest Americans?
by uberswe 7y ago
I assume you are talking about the US. Seems like a pretty reasonable investment if you cut some military funding or put a small tax on the richest Americans?
- ci5er 7y agoOr maybe, ask those consumers to pay $200/month for the Internet that they use, instead of stealing other people's money?
- brokenmachine 7y agoCreating essential infrastructure is stealing but having military spending higher than the next seven countries COMBINED is business as usual.
- ci5er 7y agoWell, the United States Constitution obligates the government to do a fair number of things. Providing IT infrastructure for people wanting to self-host family photo albums is not one of those things. There is a mechanism for amending the constitution of the United States if enough people want to elect representatives to force other people to pay for their upload bandwidth. Military spending is a different bucket. If you object to Military Spending (and I do, as you appear to do), take it up over at the counter of not-false-equivalences.
- brokenmachine 7y agoI am aware of the reality, I was just making a facetious comment. I'm not in the US. We have our own problems here in Australia. We did all pay for IT infrastructure but the government completely fucked it up as expected.
- ci5er 7y agoThe whole Telstra privatisation, split-up-ification, semi-not really privitization, going public with monopolist rights thing was a little weird to watch from over here. But, hey! At least some "very important people" made a lot of money!
- jaredklewis 7y agoIMHO, there is no shortage of ways the US government's spending allocation could be improved; doesn't mean any of them are politically viable.