5 ms·
Such a cap would have a whole slew of bad effects, many unforeseeable. It's not even possible to say if the world wide Internet would be possible with an arbitr
by wddkcs 2y ago
Such a cap would have a whole slew of bad effects, many unforeseeable. It's not even possible to say if the world wide Internet would be possible with an arbitrary size or scope limit. Even worse if it did work; the imposition of such a control scheme would create a corporate of far more power (and likely worse tendencies) than any that currently exist.
- bayindirh 2y agoI agree that a speed/size limit don't work, plus it will skyrocket the energy consumption of internet a lot by making some technologies infeasible or very inefficient. Also, this is a "technological solution for a social problem", so it's infeasible to begin with. OTOH, I have no answers for a solution to human greed, except self-control. But, this can't be applied universally either.
- wddkcs 2y agoTransparency kills greed, but at the cost of privacy. Would you allow yourself to be monitored 24/7, if it meant all resources were justly allocated?
- bayindirh 2y ago> Would you allow yourself to be monitored 24/7... It depends on who's policing the police. In the west people love to point fingers to China about "The Social Credit System", but it looks quite difference when it's looked from their side [0]. Would the observers will face the same consequences for their misconducts? This is the ultimate question. In the end, there's no system which is 100% equal for everyone (even in nature), but if you can make advantages balance out the disadvantages, you're 95% there. [0]: https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9904-the_social_credit_system https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9904-the_social_credit_system
- squigz 2y agoI'm not entirely sure why this is being downvoted. The idea of a speed/size limit for the Internet is just absurd.
- rglullis 2y agoFor the internet companies, and it's not that absurd. Just have tax rate progressive with company revenue and headcount.
- squigz 2y agoKeeping in mind that the Internet is global, and the US tax system does not (yet) apply to the rest of the world, who would tax these companies?
- rglullis 2y agoThe countries were the companies are established.
- squigz 2y agoAh, so it would only require a global coordinated effort to decide on limits and taxes, as well as to avoid havens where companies could avoid such regulation. I suppose that isn't as absurd as I thought.
- wddkcs 2y agoThis is the exact creation of a global monolith that I'm warning against. People hate the companies in power, but believe creating an even more powerful entity will magically address their concerns. That's only true when you get to the largest conceivable entity.
- rglullis 2y agoNot at all. Substack is not a global entity, we could start by having the US government taxing them more first. "They will just move elsewhere", you'll say, and the response will be "Fine, then the US government can tax US-based customers and employees of the "foreign" Substack."
- 2y ago
- vouaobrasil 2y agoI agree, which is why I advocate for universal limits not just on the internet but on energy usage and the size of corporations, too.
- wddkcs 2y agoThe problem is that an such cap or regulation will be geared for the past, not the needs or resources of the future. The free market beats centralized planning for this reason. It allows for new and unforeseeable growth, which your limits will entirely castrate.
- vouaobrasil 2y agoThat is entirely what we should strive for: an elimination of growth.
- wddkcs 2y agoAka death. Sorry, not into death cults.
- vouaobrasil 2y agoSeems like growth as we know it today is leading to death via ecosystem destruction.
- wddkcs 2y agoSo since life naturally includes death, we might as well kill everything? I couldn't tell originally if this was a joke, now it seems more like a poorly defined reaction to life's problems. Yes, nuking the entire world would technically remove all problems, but not in a good way.