4 ms·

> There is nothing illegal about what is going on now, and nothing which should be illegal about what is going on. In this context, "regulating" simply means ma

> There is nothing illegal about what is going on now, and nothing which should be illegal about what is going on. In this context, "regulating" simply means making a behavior we didn't see coming illegal. When we don't like they way corporate-driven markets (so... all of them, really) are developing we should attempt to change things until they develop a way we like, where "we" is any interest group. If we're not harnessing the activity of companies to the collective good, why let our democratic states charter them in the first place?

AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
> we should attempt to change things until they develop a way we like, where "we" is any interest group. OK, then my interest group is "respecting contracts and continuing to place the burden on consumers to make informed decisions, and on corporations to not commit fraud." What you present is, frankly, a disgusting way to think, and gives absolutely no volition to or consideration of the rights of the individuals who work in and operate these companies. Their rights are just as valid as yours, and you have no legitimate right to change or invalidate the contractual relationship a company has with its customers. It's also not a "free software" way to think about the problem. FOSS methodology suggests that you present a better alternative, not to use the violence of central authorities to force your way upon everyone else. > democratic states Speak for yourself buddy. I live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
- shantly 7y ago
  Companies are creations of the state. We should do with them what we think most valuable and likely to create the best environment. This may, and probably does, include permitting them a wide variety of liberties and privileges. > > democratic states > Speak for yourself buddy. I live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. FYI the colloquial usage of "democratic" or "democracy" is also the way actual political scientists use it when dealing in generalities of this sort, so splitting this straw is not some I'm-better-educated-on-this-than-you "gotcha", and signals the opposite of what you're intending.
- mthoms 7y ago
  Your argument would be much better served if you didn't use words like disgusting and violent to describe the ideas(s) presented by the other poster. Frankly, it sounds like you're more interested in escalating this into an idealogical flame war than participating in a civilized discussion. There's nothing inherently violent about a democratically elected government regulating the commercial activities of corporations according to the wishes of its people.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
  When there are entities constantly spamming [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes in a mad raving way on all channels, at full treble, exploiting privacy and advertising falshoods for the benefit of the few, and the bullshit jobs of the masses, while trashing the cultural, mental AND physical environment, then I'm all for denying them that possibilty. They can fuck off and go die somewhere, i won't miss them. Aye häff SPOQQN!

AndrewUnmuted 7y ago

> we should attempt to change things until they develop a way we like, where "we" is any interest group. OK, then my interest group is "respecting contracts and continuing to place the burden on consumers to make informed decisions, and on corporations to not commit fraud." What you present is, frankly, a disgusting way to think, and gives absolutely no volition to or consideration of the rights of the individuals who work in and operate these companies. Their rights are just as valid as yours, and you have no legitimate right to change or invalidate the contractual relationship a company has with its customers. It's also not a "free software" way to think about the problem. FOSS methodology suggests that you present a better alternative, not to use the violence of central authorities to force your way upon everyone else. > democratic states Speak for yourself buddy. I live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

shantly 7y ago
Companies are creations of the state. We should do with them what we think most valuable and likely to create the best environment. This may, and probably does, include permitting them a wide variety of liberties and privileges. > > democratic states > Speak for yourself buddy. I live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. FYI the colloquial usage of "democratic" or "democracy" is also the way actual political scientists use it when dealing in generalities of this sort, so splitting this straw is not some I'm-better-educated-on-this-than-you "gotcha", and signals the opposite of what you're intending.
mthoms 7y ago
Your argument would be much better served if you didn't use words like disgusting and violent to describe the ideas(s) presented by the other poster. Frankly, it sounds like you're more interested in escalating this into an idealogical flame war than participating in a civilized discussion. There's nothing inherently violent about a democratically elected government regulating the commercial activities of corporations according to the wishes of its people.
LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
When there are entities constantly spamming [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes in a mad raving way on all channels, at full treble, exploiting privacy and advertising falshoods for the benefit of the few, and the bullshit jobs of the masses, while trashing the cultural, mental AND physical environment, then I'm all for denying them that possibilty. They can fuck off and go die somewhere, i won't miss them. Aye häff SPOQQN!