9 ms·

If the gov't will be in charge of it then it will be shit as all government services are in general. If there is no profit in it for someone the platform won't

If the gov't will be in charge of it then it will be shit as all government services are in general. If there is no profit in it for someone the platform won't improve. It's the classic "the capitalist owns a restaurant vs the people own a restaurant, but which has better food".

kranke155 3y ago
I’ve been to restaurants owned by communists and the food was great. You’re just repeating cliches IMO
- throwaway59601 3y ago
  Because they operated on the free market around them, forcing them to have good quality or they wouldn't get paid. I lived in communism where the state owned practically everything - and everything, not just the food, was shit, and you couldn't get it anyways, we didn't even have toilet paper. Don't get me started on women's hygienic accessories. The recommendation from government was to use old newspaper - because propaganda is more important than hygiene, right?
  - kranke155 3y ago
    Sure. And what OP is proposing here is communism ? Do you believe your life experience allows you to predict the future?
    - throwaway59601 3y ago
      Idk, you seemed to be claiming that communism works, I'm telling you it doesn't and that your example is true only because of the free market around these communist-owned restaurants. That's it. Edit because I can't reply: because I hate it when people say that communism works even though they never lived through it and have no idea what it actually is to live in it. It's terrible, an entire country of multiple millions of humans is condemned to horrible life. Don't do it, there is enough examples of how bad it is already. We're talking about experiences of hundreds of millions of people (most of whom don't speak English and don't frequent US forums but they still exist). Yes, their experience can predict the future. Communism always and very quickly failed and then became (or simply started as) oligarchist dictatorship.
      - kranke155 3y ago
        Why did you create an account just to comment on this ?
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    > The recommendation from government was to use old newspaper Ahhh, that takes me back. I was only there until the age of 8 or so, but I vividly remember our stack of newspaper squares. And, of course, you can't flush them so you have to put them in a bin (and presumably empty the bin, but I wasn't there for that part). Also we only had running water part of the day so we had to store some up in buckets for peak times. It seemed normal at the time, but looking back it's fucking crazy.
FranzFerdiNaN 3y ago
Can’t be worse than privately owned Twitter or Facebook.
- hnuser847 3y ago
  It would be worse in different ways. 1. There’s a lot of backlash against Twitter’s new owner for his change in editorial policy. Users or tweets that would have been previously removed are no longer being censored. On a government-run platform protected by the first amendment, no censorship would be permitted. That’s mean you would have, for better or worse, a ton of racist content, conspiracy theories, violent images, pornographic images, and fake news. 2. There’s a lot of concern of data security and privacy. If you don’t trust Zuckerberg with your data, would you trust the government? 3. People flock to services that other people widely use. There are numerous social network alternatives these days, but people still flock to the major ones like FB, IG, TikTok, etc. Would anyone want to use FedBook? I have my doubts that a government-run social media platform would gain any real traction.
brookst 3y ago
Spare me. Private medicine is a disaster, private utilities are disasters where they are tried, private roads are a disaster. Governments screw a lot of things up. So do private companies. Arguing about which is better in the abstract is like arguing whether even or odd numbers are “better”: only possible for tribalists.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

kranke155 3y ago

I’ve been to restaurants owned by communists and the food was great. You’re just repeating cliches IMO

throwaway59601 3y ago
Because they operated on the free market around them, forcing them to have good quality or they wouldn't get paid. I lived in communism where the state owned practically everything - and everything, not just the food, was shit, and you couldn't get it anyways, we didn't even have toilet paper. Don't get me started on women's hygienic accessories. The recommendation from government was to use old newspaper - because propaganda is more important than hygiene, right?
- kranke155 3y ago
  Sure. And what OP is proposing here is communism ? Do you believe your life experience allows you to predict the future?
  - throwaway59601 3y ago
    Idk, you seemed to be claiming that communism works, I'm telling you it doesn't and that your example is true only because of the free market around these communist-owned restaurants. That's it. Edit because I can't reply: because I hate it when people say that communism works even though they never lived through it and have no idea what it actually is to live in it. It's terrible, an entire country of multiple millions of humans is condemned to horrible life. Don't do it, there is enough examples of how bad it is already. We're talking about experiences of hundreds of millions of people (most of whom don't speak English and don't frequent US forums but they still exist). Yes, their experience can predict the future. Communism always and very quickly failed and then became (or simply started as) oligarchist dictatorship.
    - kranke155 3y ago
      Why did you create an account just to comment on this ?
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  > The recommendation from government was to use old newspaper Ahhh, that takes me back. I was only there until the age of 8 or so, but I vividly remember our stack of newspaper squares. And, of course, you can't flush them so you have to put them in a bin (and presumably empty the bin, but I wasn't there for that part). Also we only had running water part of the day so we had to store some up in buckets for peak times. It seemed normal at the time, but looking back it's fucking crazy.

FranzFerdiNaN 3y ago

Can’t be worse than privately owned Twitter or Facebook.

hnuser847 3y ago
It would be worse in different ways. 1. There’s a lot of backlash against Twitter’s new owner for his change in editorial policy. Users or tweets that would have been previously removed are no longer being censored. On a government-run platform protected by the first amendment, no censorship would be permitted. That’s mean you would have, for better or worse, a ton of racist content, conspiracy theories, violent images, pornographic images, and fake news. 2. There’s a lot of concern of data security and privacy. If you don’t trust Zuckerberg with your data, would you trust the government? 3. People flock to services that other people widely use. There are numerous social network alternatives these days, but people still flock to the major ones like FB, IG, TikTok, etc. Would anyone want to use FedBook? I have my doubts that a government-run social media platform would gain any real traction.

brookst 3y ago

Spare me. Private medicine is a disaster, private utilities are disasters where they are tried, private roads are a disaster. Governments screw a lot of things up. So do private companies. Arguing about which is better in the abstract is like arguing whether even or odd numbers are “better”: only possible for tribalists.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]