4 ms·

Do you have any justification in mind for the “free service” being funded by tax payers? Why should it be free for the people who need it, and why should tax pa

Do you have any justification in mind for the “free service” being funded by tax payers? Why should it be free for the people who need it, and why should tax payers fund it?

tossandthrow 7mo ago
Such proposal doesn't need justification. You can merely disagree. Anyhow. The justification is that it is an important part of a communications infrastructure. Just like the government finances roads, etc.
- ghurtado 7mo ago
  I'm not disagreeing with you, but shouldn't free Internet access come before that?
  - Dylan16807 7mo ago
    We should be making sure everyone has internet access, but hosting some basic pages is about 1000x cheaper, so no I don't think free internet access should come before that.
  - tossandthrow 7mo ago
    Internet access doesn't seem to be an issue. Politics is also about making practical choices to advance humanity.
- cindyllm 7mo ago
  [dead]
palmotea 7mo ago
> Do you have any justification in mind for the “free service” being funded by tax payers? Why should it be free for the people who need it, and why should tax payers fund it? Because the government should provide useful services. It should be funded by tax dollars because I'm tried of libertarians, and it's well-demonstrated that the free market has consumer hostile incentives that I'm sick of.
- 999900000999 7mo ago
  Alright cool. Your assuming the local government employed webmaster won't favor his friends restaurants. Craigslist basically is this, and it's more or less free.
  - xmprt 7mo ago
    Forgive me for assuming that the government owned service would be more transparent/serve the people better than a privately owned, closed source, platform that's explicitly funded by ads and so is transparently corrupt. Even your worst case scenario for this would be equivalent to what we already have.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  - palmotea 7mo ago
    > Your assuming the local government employed webmaster won't favor his friends restaurants. Oh my! Mic drop! You got me! Corporate owned sites would have to be unbiased, right? It's not like a business would ever do something as disreputable favoring a restaurant that paid for the favored treatment, or try to steer you to affiliated businesses. Inconceivable! But seriously now: a government-run site would be way better and have less biases. In the US, there's a good chance it'd be run by civically-minded people, and there's about zero chance that conflict of interest would be baked into its "business" model.
    - donkeybeer 7mo ago
      Trump would be running that right now if it existed.
komali2 7mo ago
Converted to dollars, the value is far greater than the cost of a single bomb dropped on strangers that aren't a threat to me, so I don't need to justify it until someone can justify to me the bombs, the oil and gas subsidies, the bailouts, the...
- mlrtime 7mo ago
  >the value is far greater than the cost of a single bomb dropped on strangers that aren't a threat to me Such a weird comparison. Just so we are tuned in, can you list some things that are of less value to you than a single bomb on a stranger?
  - komali2 7mo ago
    My point is I don't want bombs dropped on strangers, so, in terms of things the government spends money on, there's nothing of less value to me that a single bomb on a stranger. Of all things the government spends its money on, I'd rather any one of those things to take 100% of the budget, than even a penny to go to dropping a bomb on a stranger, even if that significantly decreases my quality of life. I just really don't like my government killing people far away that pose no threat to me.
dumpsterdiver 6mo ago
Reading back through my comments, I recognize that omitting the quotes around “free services” would have made my comment here more palatable, and less provocative. That was poor form on my part.

Do you have any justification in mind for the “free service” being funded by tax payers? Why should it be free for the people who need it, and why should tax payers fund it?

tossandthrow 7mo ago

Such proposal doesn't need justification. You can merely disagree. Anyhow. The justification is that it is an important part of a communications infrastructure. Just like the government finances roads, etc.

ghurtado 7mo ago
I'm not disagreeing with you, but shouldn't free Internet access come before that?
- Dylan16807 7mo ago
  We should be making sure everyone has internet access, but hosting some basic pages is about 1000x cheaper, so no I don't think free internet access should come before that.
- tossandthrow 7mo ago
  Internet access doesn't seem to be an issue. Politics is also about making practical choices to advance humanity.
cindyllm 7mo ago
[dead]

palmotea 7mo ago

> Do you have any justification in mind for the “free service” being funded by tax payers? Why should it be free for the people who need it, and why should tax payers fund it? Because the government should provide useful services. It should be funded by tax dollars because I'm tried of libertarians, and it's well-demonstrated that the free market has consumer hostile incentives that I'm sick of.

999900000999 7mo ago
Alright cool. Your assuming the local government employed webmaster won't favor his friends restaurants. Craigslist basically is this, and it's more or less free.
- xmprt 7mo ago
  Forgive me for assuming that the government owned service would be more transparent/serve the people better than a privately owned, closed source, platform that's explicitly funded by ads and so is transparently corrupt. Even your worst case scenario for this would be equivalent to what we already have.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- palmotea 7mo ago
  > Your assuming the local government employed webmaster won't favor his friends restaurants. Oh my! Mic drop! You got me! Corporate owned sites would have to be unbiased, right? It's not like a business would ever do something as disreputable favoring a restaurant that paid for the favored treatment, or try to steer you to affiliated businesses. Inconceivable! But seriously now: a government-run site would be way better and have less biases. In the US, there's a good chance it'd be run by civically-minded people, and there's about zero chance that conflict of interest would be baked into its "business" model.
  - donkeybeer 7mo ago
    Trump would be running that right now if it existed.

komali2 7mo ago

Converted to dollars, the value is far greater than the cost of a single bomb dropped on strangers that aren't a threat to me, so I don't need to justify it until someone can justify to me the bombs, the oil and gas subsidies, the bailouts, the...

mlrtime 7mo ago
>the value is far greater than the cost of a single bomb dropped on strangers that aren't a threat to me Such a weird comparison. Just so we are tuned in, can you list some things that are of less value to you than a single bomb on a stranger?
- komali2 7mo ago
  My point is I don't want bombs dropped on strangers, so, in terms of things the government spends money on, there's nothing of less value to me that a single bomb on a stranger. Of all things the government spends its money on, I'd rather any one of those things to take 100% of the budget, than even a penny to go to dropping a bomb on a stranger, even if that significantly decreases my quality of life. I just really don't like my government killing people far away that pose no threat to me.

dumpsterdiver 6mo ago

Reading back through my comments, I recognize that omitting the quotes around “free services” would have made my comment here more palatable, and less provocative. That was poor form on my part.