5 ms·
There are several problems with this idea. As you say this infrastructure is important, but it's too important to centralise it and put into government's hands.
by 5560675260 6y ago
There are several problems with this idea. As you say this infrastructure is important, but it's too important to centralise it and put into government's hands. If there is a government monopoly you will not be able to shop around, choose best service and will have to deal with
* poor service, since there will be no competition and little to no incentives to improve it
* lack of privacy, since law enforcements and random officials will absolutely want to have full access (and sure, Google has access to my emails, but I can use Protonmail instead and trust them way more not to abuse this access than I would trust "DMV for email")
* even further centralisation of power - it would be much easier to apply pressure to people doing anything "anti-government" (I believe there are already examples of this with people being cut from all-encompassing WeChat in China, but I don't have references at hand)
There is also an argument against frivolous expansion of human rights with anything not absolutely necessary or too specific.
- lvs 6y agoMaking something a utility doesn't require it be centralized. You simply put it in municipal/local/state hands, as we do with all other utilities, and just set federal minimum standards. The federal government doesn't fill your potholes. As it stands, internet access and services are incredibly centralized in the marketplace within just a handful of enormous companies.
- dao- 6y ago> If there is a government monopoly you will not be able to shop around, choose best service and will have to deal with In a functioning democracy, you'd be able to elect the right people to make sure service is maintained properly and not abused.
- jeofken 6y agoPolitical parties attract to their tops sophists who can manipulate and form personal alliances - it does not select for who can provide the greatest value at the lowest price.
- Shish2k 6y agoI agree centralisation is bad - the model of “government ensures everybody has a certain minimum level of service (eg set themselves up as a free 4G ISP offering just enough speed to fill in HTML forms etc); anybody who wants good service can pay a private company for it” seems like it would be the best of both?
- dusted 6y agoDoes not have to be actually run by govt. it could be that govt. buys services from providers, but in the end, it enforces your right to the service, so that private companies cannot just decide you don't exist anymore.