epgui

47 ms·

661.
by epgui 3y ago
TIL!
662.
by epgui 3y ago
Thanks for sharing!
663.
by epgui 3y ago
Deontology is something related but different.
664.
by epgui 3y ago
This represents a big misunderstanding of the nature of ethics, as opposed to deontology or law. That being said, I also wish society was better at punishing ethical lapses.
665.
by epgui 3y ago
Then use a different example, like fiberop cable, power companies, telephone towers, or water streams or parks. I don't think the scarcity is the most important feature, I think it's the "public nature" of the thing. But
666.
by epgui 3y ago
You are correct but that's a different conversation (and within the current discussion, a detail).
667.
by epgui 3y ago
The link (singular) I provided was to a database of / search engine for academic literature. What more do you want? I essentially sent you to the entire corpus of human knowledge lol.
668.
by epgui 3y ago
Pardon me for the tangent, but I suspect that at least part of the issue is that people tend to think they are not affected by "bad information" (eg.: propaganda, mis/dis-information, information-noise...). I think most peopl
669.
by epgui 3y ago
To be fair, Microsoft does seem to have repaired a lot of its bad reputation in the last decade or so. Has it not? At least that was my impression. The word Microsoft used to be borderline toxic.
670.
by epgui 3y ago
Yeah, and the operational stability of a company is a factor that goes straight to its ability to continue as a going concern. So it's reasonable for many people to base their decision on this kind of drama (even if not everyone agrees
671.
by epgui 3y ago
I think we disagree about the importance of these things, but that's okay. However... There is plenty of academic literature which explores the concept of social media as infrastructure. I didn't come up with the idea, I only poin
672.
by epgui 3y ago
I think your comments border on the "appeal to ridicule". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
673.
by epgui 3y ago
Books are great, but if you haven't noticed, they are different than content in video form. Both have their own advantages and disadvantages, so they are not perfectly fungible.
674.
by epgui 3y ago
We continue to be talking about different things. "What is" is different that "what ought to be". I am talking about the latter, but you continue to refer to the former. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki&#x2F
675.
by epgui 3y ago
So first, let's consider what I am not talking about. That would be videos of cats, entertainment, etc. Things that could more easily be argued to be important would be stuff like academic content or news content. At this point Youtu
676.
by epgui 3y ago
"The fact that something is not forbidden" is different from "the existence of a positive right to something". In the latter case, there would probably need to be a relatively convenient opt-out mechanism. Your comment i
677.
by epgui 3y ago
> If YT vanished from the face of the Earth tomorrow, the country would continue without any problem. This is interesting, because it's probably true (but what would the economic impact be? I'd wager it could be rather large)..
678.
by epgui 3y ago
Capitalism and socialism are not all-or-nothing. I don't see people getting upset at the special relationship between government and power companies or telephone companies.
679.
by epgui 3y ago
When you do business with the phone company, you can draw the same analogy. And yet these often/usually have special relationships with governments owing to the critically important infrastructure involved.
680.
by epgui 3y ago
I don't have a business plan, and I haven't drafted any laws. But you can easily imagine a model in which government subsidies are granted at arms length to offset revenue lost by the protection of such a hypothetical right as the
681.
by epgui 3y ago
If access to certain kinds of massive social networks is deemed sufficiently important to protect, hypothetically, then there would likely be government subsidies to offset any lost revenue. For every objection one could raise, there's
682.
by epgui 3y ago
In most developed countries you do have a right to clean water. And depending on the framework you're looking at (eg.: UN), humans in general do have a right to clean water (even if this right is frequently not protected).
683.
by epgui 3y ago
> is not YT's problem I agree... But shouldn't it be society's problem? That's what I'm saying: I am not talking about what the current law is. I am proposing that perhaps (just perhaps) there ought to be differe
684.
by epgui 3y ago
Also... what if you requested water? Would you have a right to it being clean? The fact that you initiate the interaction is not on its own free license to force feed you whatever the requestee pleases.
685.
by epgui 3y ago
Yes, I am talking about some form or other of exactly this, and I am not trying to hide it. I think big social networks have immense importance in society (much like many other utilities), and I think it's worth raising the question, a
686.
by epgui 3y ago
> Users don't have a right to use YT. The question here is not whether they have a right to use it, but whether they should have a right. All rights are invented, created essentially out of thin air, to protect things people care su
687.
by epgui 3y ago
I could get behind that.
688.
by epgui 3y ago
> Again, the right you demanded clearly exists. Where is this written?
689.
by epgui 3y ago
At what point does an important or essential service become a public good? Edit: it's a legitimate question. You can argue that nobody "needs" YouTube but the fact of the matter is that if you can't access YouTube, you c
690.
by epgui 3y ago
Well that's a heck of a rephrasing.

More ›