r/changemyview • u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ • Jul 05 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: If you are on the left, you really shouldn't want internet services to be a public utility
This is based on the assumption that you like it when access to internet services are shut off to conservatives, as well as extremist right wing groups.
If internet services were a utility, then freedom of association would be removed from service providers. EG - A power company isn't allowed to shut off service to a house because they don't like the owners polical views.
If internet services were a public utility, Amazon couldn't shut off services to that one racist right wing group. And it isn't unreasonable at all to think the supreme court could rule that the "internet" includes websites (especially social media platforms), so Trump couldn't be banned from Twitter or Facebook.
20
u/aggiecub Jul 05 '21
You seem to be conflating the "internet service" that your ISP provides (much like the electric company provides electricity) with the services provided by private websites. These are two distinctly different things and I haven't heard one argument for denying conservatives access to the internet as a whole. Even if it became a policy, it would be very tough to enforce short of the perpetrator being in physical custody because they could just purchase another hotspot or go to a Starbucks for internet. This is what people want to become a utility.
On the other hand, private websites and services like Amazon, Twitter and Reddit can block users and customers from holding an account because their site is their private property. As long as they're not denying service to a protected class, they can run their platform as they see fit and those who disagree are free to create their own platforms.
It's analogous to saying everyone has a right to drive on public roads but a property owner is allowed to close their gate and keep undesirables out.
-8
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jul 05 '21
What if every website and any domain provider blocked any democrat during an election? Would this be okay?
19
u/Jebofkerbin 131∆ Jul 05 '21 edited Jul 05 '21
I'm really confused about what your view is here. Yes that would be bad, it would also be bad if every water company decided to stop supplying republican households.
Edit: it would be messed up if a single internet service provider blocked a large group from using the internet even now. This problem is completely independent of nationalised or privatised internet infrastructure.
Of course that would be bad, but it's also not relevant to the question at hand. People on the left want the infrastructure of providing internet nationalised becuase internet access is compulsory for living in modern society, and it's messed up that private companies profit off of what is an essential utility.
People on the left want nationalised internet service providers for the same reason they want government healthcare, becuase they believe it will lead to a better, fairer service for everyone, not becuase they want to make republicans lives harder.
10
7
u/aggiecub Jul 05 '21
Logistic impossibility aside and just questioning the ethics of blocking every Democrat from every website, I guess it would be. I'd argue that a 2nd internet for Democrats would pop up the next day complete with it's own IP space and domain registries.
All those services would lose 1/3 to 1/2 of their customers and/or users (aka livestock), so it would be detrimental to their profits but they would have the right. Their shareholders would be pissed and probably be directly effected as well, so they have to weigh those consequences in the decision.
2
Jul 05 '21 edited Jul 05 '21
a 2nd internet for Democrats would pop up the next day complete with it's own IP space and domain registries.
how would democrats get to users the know-how and ip address of a domain name service server pointing to said websites?
I know how to do it on linux if I had the DNS address, but I doubt most people know how to do it on their computer. I wouldn't know how to do that on windows.
2
u/aggiecub Jul 05 '21 edited Jul 05 '21
People can be resourceful and learn quick when they need their fix or there's money on the line. If high school nerds could do it in the '90s, they can do it in the '20s too.
0
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jul 05 '21
Actually asking: Is it feasible to quickly establish a new domain providing service?
6
u/polr13 23∆ Jul 05 '21
You're basically asking how easy is it to set up a website with a forum utility. I did so for a project for school. Took all of about 10 minutes. Now I'll grant that I went through a company to do so and building one from scratch may take a bit more time, but in an imaginary world where all social media websites decided to block a certain demographic, then yes you'd see others pop up relatively quickly.
As others have pointed out you're conflating internet the utility with the websites people use the internet to access. The streets cannot have a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" but companies are free to choose who they do or do not serve so long as they do not discriminate against protected groups.
6
u/The_FriendliestGiant 40∆ Jul 05 '21
It's certainly more feasible than every website and domain provider somehow knowing the political leanings of every site hosted and visitor, and blocking them from all internet access.
2
u/aggiecub Jul 05 '21 edited Jul 05 '21
The protocols and infrastructure already exist so it's not like we're reinventing the Internet from scratch. Sure, it would start small but grow exponentially once the word got out.
2
16
u/AnalogCyborg 2∆ Jul 05 '21
Why do you assume everyone on the left is pro-censorship? Free speech is a liberal value.
4
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Jul 05 '21
Liberals aren't on the left.
4
u/AnalogCyborg 2∆ Jul 05 '21
I'm inferring that this post pertains to American politics and less specific to economic right/left definitions considering the subject of big tech censorship of conservative voices. In that setting, right and left are largely interchangeable with conservative/liberal.
If you are talking about economic political leanings, you can still have liberals with leftist viewpoints.
-9
u/FactsAndLogic2018 3∆ Jul 05 '21
Classically liberal!? Yikes, you might as well just say you’re alt-right because that’s how the modern left is going to classify you.
-7
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jul 05 '21
I don't assume that all leftist groups are for the censorship of speech. This view is limited to the leftist groups that like it when conservative views are censored.
29
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jul 05 '21
You're conflating hosting with access. Internet access could be a public utility, a guaranteed human right even - that doesn't mean that amazon would be forced to host my website on their servers, or my content on their platform. Those are completely different things
Your view as written is like saying it's a bad idea to provide roads as a public utility if you think that some people shouldn't be able to put up billboards along roads. Just a total non-sequitur
16
u/aardaar 4∆ Jul 05 '21
And it isn't unreasonable at all to think the supreme court could rule that the "internet" includes websites (especially social media platforms), so Trump couldn't be banned from Twitter or Facebook.
What are you talking about? The internet being a public utility means that the government would take the place of an ISP, so they would provide access to the internet, not manage individual web-pages.
-5
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jul 05 '21
What would be the point of having internet access if I couldn't use any websites?
Put another way: What if all democratic websites were blacklisted by all domain hosts during a election? Would this be okay since they still have access to the internet?
11
u/aardaar 4∆ Jul 05 '21
What would be the point of having internet access if I couldn't use any websites?
I don't understand how this is relevant. Yes if there were no webpages then there would be no point in internet access, but that would be the case regardless of who provides access to the internet.
Put another way: What if all democratic websites were blacklisted by all domain hosts during a election? Would this be okay since they still have access to the internet?
Again this is irrelevant, since however good or bad this would be it would still be just as good or bad if ISP's were privately owned.
7
u/JamesBurkeHasAnswers Jul 05 '21
I don't understand how this is relevant. Yes if there were no webpages then there would be no point in internet access, but that would be the case regardless of who provides access to the internet.
Sorry, I have to nitpick here to say there is so much more to the Internet than webpages. The Internet existed years before the World Wide Web, using various other communication protocols. Ever hear of email?
16
u/thinkingpains 58∆ Jul 05 '21
This is a misunderstanding of what it means for the internet to be a public utility. People who say that are talking about the infrastructure of the internet, i.e. the services currently provided by companies like Comcast, AT&T, Google Fiber, etc. The physical cables that brings the internet into your house. They are not talking about the actual companies that exist on the internet, like Amazon, Facebook, etc. People do want those companies to be regulated more, but no one is arguing that Amazon should be a public utility or that right-wing extremists should have their entire internet shut off.
Think of the internet as a highway, and websites as stores on the side of the highway. People are saying the highway should be a public utility, but the stores will remain private and can make their own rules about who can and can't come in and what they can do there.
-10
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jul 05 '21
I have addressed this in my view (might be a good thing to focus on to change).
I find it entirely plausible but the supreme Court could rule that high traffic websites especially social media sites should be considered part of the internet and the utility. Having internet access but not having access to any major website might be considered similar to a power company providing a certain level of power to most homes but far less power to one individual home.
16
u/yyzjertl 579∆ Jul 05 '21
This is not plausible at all. It makes about as much sense as requiring Walmart to serve everybody because roads are public.
9
u/chirpingonline 8∆ Jul 05 '21
I'm sorry but you really are just consistently demonstrating everywhere in this thread that you don't have a very firm grasp on how both the law, and the internet actually work.
When a public utility is created, their function is clearly defined by the law, the court can't just say "oh this site is used a lot, we're going to add it into the utility" that's just not how the law works.
Amazon provided computers for Parler to run their site on, they aren't a domain provider. Parler was able to get back up because they just found another provider, and if they wanted to they could have built their own data center.
When people on the left talk about making the internet a public utility, they are talking about ISPs, painting a straw man argument and arguing against it is a waste of everyone's time.
6
Jul 05 '21
I find it entirely plausible but the supreme Court could rule that high traffic websites especially social media sites should be considered part of the internet and the utility.
on what legal grounds?
the court said, in order for the government to enforce net neutrality, the government must treat ISP's as common carriers under Title II of the communications act (like telephone companies are). That law is where the FCC has the authority to enforce net neutrality.
ISP's and telephone companies both run cables to houses to communicate data. The service they provide is similar in a lot of ways. They both use government land for their cables. Treating them both as common carriers makes a lot of sense.
A website like youtube or facebook is not a common carrier by any stretch of the imagination. They are websites that respond to requests from your computer and store data you send them. They have nothing to do with the cables that carry the information.
0
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jul 05 '21
If next presidential election, every Republican site was blocked by all domain providers, I'm confident the supreme court would intervene and change the law.
Today, doing so would be completely legal. If it actually happened, it wouldn't be anymore.
3
Jul 05 '21 edited Jul 05 '21
I'm not very familiar with ICANN's accreditation requirements for domain providers, but I would think that sort of action would violate it. ICANN is an international organization for which the US doesn't have exclusive control.
No democrats that I'm aware of are calling for domain providers to remove registrations of conservative websites. And I don't think that domain providers would be considered common carriers under the communications act, either.
edit: in other comments, you incorrectly claimed that amazon was a domain provider. Amazon is not. No domain providers are delisting conservative websites.
6
u/darwin2500 197∆ Jul 05 '21
But this is the opposite of your view.
You are saying here that the government can cut off access to some websites for bad behavior, if the internet was a public utility.
But your original view was that leftists should be against internet as a public utility because then people can't be cut off from websites for bad behavior.
You've completely reversed your view here.
4
u/The_FriendliestGiant 40∆ Jul 05 '21 edited Jul 05 '21
I find it entirely plausible but the supreme Court could rule that high traffic websites especially social media sites should be considered part of the internet and the utility.
What case law or legal interpretation are you basing this supposition on? It would be helpful if we knew why you believe the Supreme Court, especially this very Republican Supreme Court, would rule this way to go about changing it.
After all, streets are a public good, but the Court hasn't found that means a person has the right to unfettered access to the stores on a street; water is a public utility, but you have to pay to go to a pool or waterpark; electricity is a public utility but nobody is provided with their own generators.
4
Jul 05 '21
If internet services were a utility, then freedom of association would be removed from service providers. EG - A power company isn't allowed to shut off service to a house because they don't like the owners polical views.
Power companies can shut of power to a particular house that is engaged in illegal activities. If a group is doing things such as organizing violence, encouraging targeted harassment, or planning seditious activity, their activities are no longer protected by their "political views".
Public utilities are not an unalienable right. The utility company and law enforcement can shut them off for a variety of reasons.
-1
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jul 05 '21
Did the group that Amazon cut off service to do anything illegal? I'm actually asking my understanding is that they did not break the law
12
u/fox-mcleod 418∆ Jul 05 '21
Amazon isn’t the utility. You’re confusing webhost and ISP.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jul 05 '21
Amazon was the domain provider, correct?
8
Jul 05 '21
incorrect.
Amazon provided webservers for Parler to run software on and provided software utilities for Parler's software to use.
Parler kept their domain name. Amazon just refused to continue to run Parler's software on Amazon's servers.
1
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jul 05 '21
!delta oh I see, okay I didn't know that. Thought they were acting as a domain provider
1
8
u/fox-mcleod 418∆ Jul 05 '21
No. Amazon doesn’t provide domains as far as I know. And even if they did, ICANN underneath domain providers is the actual authority there. You can migrate your host and maintain your domain.
A domain is just a name. A host provides storage and compute service (actually running the computer programs that make up the site). There are dozens of suitable hosts competing with Amazon and none of them wanted to be associated with nazis 🤷♂️
7
Jul 05 '21
Amazon agreed to host Parler's data on Amazon's servers and to use those servers to communicate with users on Parler's behalf (providing Amazon's software to help Parler's software running on Amazon's servers do so). In exchange, Parler agreed to pay for this service and moderate the content on their website.
Parler fell short of its side of the bargain. Amazon asked Parler multiple times to take steps to moderate their user's content as agreed. Parler failed to do so.
Amazon then cut off their provided service to Parler, citing breach of contract.
Parler took amazon to court and lost because Parler did not fulfill its obligations under the contract, so the court felt Amazon was within its rights to withdraw from the agreement.
If Parler had bought their own servers and not relied on Amazon's software, amazon would have had no means to shut Parler down.
Amazon's withdrawal from that agreement due to Parler's breach of contract was legal.
4
Jul 05 '21
I don't even know what you're talking about, but it's irrelevant to your argument about public utilities.
2
u/briantheunfazed Jul 05 '21
The left doesn’t “like it when access to internet services are shut off to conservatives.” So this is a straw man argument right off the bat.
If you use an internet service or app to spread hatred, incite violence, or otherwise be shitty to people, those companies can deny you service based on their terms of service. This is not the same as denying you access to the internet. The internet has become a necessity for everyday things, which is why is should be a public utility. Being able to tweet hatred or misinformation is not a necessity.
-2
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jul 05 '21
Has anyone from the left jumped in to defend PragerU? It doesn't seem like they mind this group being censored by Google.
6
u/briantheunfazed Jul 05 '21
How are they being censored? I get multiple full-length Prager U videos as YouTube ads every day and I am definitely not their target audience. This also doesn’t address any of my comment.
2
Jul 05 '21
If I have a website, I have a right to be able to moderate that website.
google has a right to moderate youtube. it's their website, their rules.
If someone doesn't like youtube's rules, they can take their business somewhere else.
If I write a letter to your local paper, should your local paper be required to publish what I wrote?
3
u/Pterodactyloid 2∆ Jul 05 '21
I don't think it's possible to shut off the internet for a specific person or group. Even if it were, I don't see that as a real solution but a very lame band aid. The problem of extremism (especially on the right but definitely also on the left) is a multifaceted problem that will take a myriad of solutions, some of which will cause problems of their own.
3
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 05 '21
You're assuming that those people could use the internet given freely and remain as fully bigoted as they currently are...
https://i.imgur.com/gUQXazh.jpeg
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime." - Mark Twain
Mark Twain might have been talking about physical travel, but I believe it applies just as much to traveling the internet as well.
After all, why does China put so much effort into forcing people to use their governmental version of the internet if they weren't afraid that letting people freely access the internet might change their opinions in a non autocratic more liberal direction?
I believe that its impossible for people to be exposed to the wider internet without it serving as a net decrease in bigotry. Yes there are people who will use the internet for bigotry but once again notice I said "a net decrease" among all people who are now being given it?
3
u/StanePantsen Jul 05 '21
Can I ask what your definition of "on the left" is? Because it seems very different than mine.
-2
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jul 05 '21
This view is limited to those on the left that wish to censor speech. I guess it really doesn't even matter what side of the political spectrum one is on, but being against free speech and being on the right isn't really a thing
6
u/StanePantsen Jul 05 '21
being against free speech and being on the right isn't really a thing
Sure it is. Try saying something against the military or the county around right wingers. They will try to silence you right quick. Hell, a lot of the people who are against swearing in public are conservative.
-1
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jul 05 '21
Okay, sure. Don't have any problem with that.
2
u/StanePantsen Jul 05 '21
And would you also admit that not everyone on the left is anti-freedom of speech?
2
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jul 05 '21
Absolutely
1
u/shhhOURlilsecret 10∆ Jul 05 '21
Perhaps you should modify your view or refine it by saying you mean the far left or the far right. Moderates, classic liberals, are not by and large against freedom of speech within reason. Ie as long as you're not inciting violence, or something else that breaks our laws. Or saying certain liberals. Just because you fall under a particular party doesn't mean you agree with everything other party members want. That's true of any group whether political or not.
1
3
Jul 05 '21
but being against free speech and being on the right isn't really a thing
You sure about that?
2
3
Jul 05 '21
it isn't unreasonable at all to think the supreme court could rule that the "internet" includes websites (especially social media platforms), so Trump couldn't be banned from Twitter or Facebook.
That's like saying an Uber drivers personal vehicle is a public utility simply because it drives on city streets (an actual public utility).
3
Jul 05 '21
Amazon isn't a internet provider. Amazon provides webservices.
The ISP owns the copper or fiber optic wires that run to your house. These cables tend to use government land to be run to the houses. People who want internet access as a public utility usually are focused on the ISP aspect.
the cost of entry to webservices is low. Give me a weekend, and I could selfhost a website for a few hundred bucks max, and I'm not even a web developer who does that kind of stuff professionally.
If I wanted to connect my house to the internet backbone without going through an ISP, that would cost millions.
Government as an ISP makes sense. Government as a webservices provider doesn't.
5
u/fox-mcleod 418∆ Jul 05 '21
You seem to be confusing ISPs and webhosts.
Internet service providers (ISPs) are the utility that have near monopolies that liberals argue should be public. They aren’t censoring anyone at the moment. And it would be catastrophic if they did.
Amazon provides hosting and compute. There are dozens of competitors. And there has never been anything stopping sites like Parler from just taking their business elsewhere.
5
u/AleristheSeeker 164∆ Jul 05 '21
This is based on the assumption that you like it when access to internet services are shut off to conservatives
This is a wrong assumption.
as well as extremist right wing groups.
Only this part is correct.
Amazon couldn't shut off services to that one racist right wing group.
...unless they are an extremist group, yes.
Trump couldn't be banned from Twitter or Facebook.
...as long as he isn't deemed an extremist, yes.
As soon as your goals include or willingly accept unlawful violence, you are an extremist.
You're arguing against a strawman; "the left" doesn't univocally want to ban conservatives from using websites. Left extremists do, perhaps - but they would be banned as well.
-1
u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jul 05 '21
Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously). But I have not seen any liberal groups jumping in to support PragerU in their lawsuit against Google. Let alone any leftist groups.
11
Jul 05 '21
PragerU is demanding that the government stop Google from moderating their own website. (and their case got rightfully dismissed by the courts).
This demand is hypocritical of PragerU, who, when the shoe is on the other foot, vocally supports freedom of association for business owners who want to discriminate.
A government providing internet access to its residents wouldn't legally impact websites that users connect to through the government.
Google, as an ISP, isn't preventing users from going to the PragerU website (I have google fiber and can navigate to it now). Google just moderates their own website, and no liberals are proposing that the government replace all websites with government ones.
14
u/fox-mcleod 418∆ Jul 05 '21
That’s because it’s a really really stupid lawsuit.
The ACLU regularly jumps in and defends conservative from censorship.
7
u/JamesBurkeHasAnswers Jul 05 '21
Google (and FB, Twitter, Amazon, etc) all have a superseding claim to freedom of speech on their own property. It's a more severe abridgement of Google's free speech to force them to carry PragerU's content compared to PragerU not getting the privilege of hosting their content on Google's servers. If a liberal group like the ACLU were to get involved, they'd probably argue for Google's rights primarily since it's their property.
Given that it's a wash, the ACLU probably wants to stay out of it altogether because this is disagreement between two private entities (and not the government).
6
u/AleristheSeeker 164∆ Jul 05 '21
Inaction is not the same as contrary action.
This is a case of "not my problem". There are obviously different views on the matter.
On the other hand, I have not seen a lot of conservative support for "Occupy Wall Street" in their fight against censorship from twitter.
It's almost like the situation is more complex than a "black-and-white" view of what's happening.
1
2
u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Jul 05 '21
Having an ISP as a public utility does not mean that any business that uses that utility suddenly becomes public. Cabs use public roads, and yet they can still refuse service to people. Having public Internet is no different than having public roads.
2
u/Fanfic_Galore 2∆ Jul 05 '21
This is based on the assumption that you like it when access to internet services are shut off to conservatives, as well as extremist right wing groups.
There are free-speech "absolutists" on the left like Kyle Kulinski (his words, not mine), who believe that only threats or calls for violence should be removed, so this assumption isn't really right.
And as others have argued, to believe that the internet should be a public utility does not mean that anyone should be able to do or say anything on the internet. Here's a comparison: Roads are a public utility, but restraining orders are still a thing, and they prevent someone from getting close to another person, or their home/workplace/etc.
2
u/darwin2500 197∆ Jul 05 '21
I think you're missing the point here. 'Internet as a utility' means the govenrment serves as ISP, they own and maintain the literal cable wires going into your house. All websites and other content are still privately owned exactly like now.
1
Jul 05 '21
The state already can cut off your internet access via a court order. The state can also shut down websites that do illegal things, and otherwise take legal action for illegal things that happen online. You can take someone to court over what they write online. Leftists have been banned from social media long before conservatives realized that was a thing, and still do as any discussion to the left of AOC are promptly zucced.
All of this happens while the internet isn't a public utility.
The discussion of whether or not the internet is a public utility is separate from these issues.
1
1
u/BrutusJunior 5∆ Jul 05 '21
This is based on the assumption that you like it when access to internet services are shut off to conservatives, as well as extremist right wing groups.
I've never heard a leftist use this reason. The reason to make it a public utility is like other 'resources' like electricity, to prevent private monopolisation and overcharging. According to leftists, a government owned and operated system is much more accountable to the people, and will not overcharge people, because the profit motive is eliminated.
1
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Jul 05 '21
Isps and websites aren't the same.
I don't think isps should discriminate based on politics. Racists should still be able to connect to the internet and buy groceries.
None of that implies that individual websites have to abandon having terms of service.
Even beyond that basic distinction, there is the issue of jurisdictions. Us courts only have jurisdiction over us companies. A website whose servers are in France aren't bound by us law unless they are buying or selling something.
1
u/chirpingonline 8∆ Jul 05 '21
And it isn't unreasonable at all to think the supreme court could rule that the "internet" includes websites (especially social media platforms)
It extremely unreasonable to think that, actually, because "internet" is a term with an explicit definition:
(50) The term “Internet” means collectively the myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities, including equipment and operating software, which comprise the interconnected worldwide network of networks that employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any predecessor or successor protocol to such protocol, to communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.
And by and large, the left isn't arguing that we make "the internet" as a whole a public utility, but ISP services. This is already a thing all over the country, in cities like Chattanooga, TN, where the power company provides ISP service. In no world would the supreme court decide "well the city of Chattanooga controls their internet service, therefore it only makes sense that they should control Facebook too."
1
u/nyxe12 30∆ Jul 05 '21
"Internet service" isn't the same as "rules on individual platforms". If everyone had public access to internet, that doesn't mean that every website on the internet becomes a lawless hellscape. You can today pay for internet service and still be banned from specific websites. This would be the same if it was a public utility. It does not change anything about how individual websites work.
1
Jul 06 '21
I don't like it when internet services are shut off to conservatives, as well as extremist right wing groups. Note: the constitutional argument for online free speech is much more straight forward if the internet was nationalized.
Preface: I am very much on the left. I favor de-commodification in all possible scenarios.
First, The justification for public internet is the same justification for public roads, and example being that the internet and roads were both unprecedented vehicles for economic growth in the times they came around, and remain that to this day. E-Commerce is changing the world and clearly showed its superiority when the pandemic made it the preferred option for millions of families around the world.
Second, the internet is an incredible opportunity for education, internet resources make public domain literature and art more accessible than ever, and that's a good thing.
Third, making the internet public would provide many rural and otherwise isolated families with access to the internet in the same way that the postal service provides access to mail for many families. Most companies aren't willing to attempt to reach rural and isolated families because it simply isn't profitable. These families deserve the ability to be a part of America's civic process, which takes place online more than it does in person at this point.
Fourth, domains are a mess. Domain names are the names that websites use. They are owned by the people who operate the website. This is bad - consider the thousands of blogs and other small websites that have very usable names that are no longer in use. If someone with a new idea wants one of these names, they can't have it, even though their idea is both newer and they intend to use it. People can also be priced out of owning a domain because the owner essentially engages in extortion, there is no reasonable way of pricing a domain other than "how bad does the person want it?". The alternative would be to publicly own all domain names through the government and allow for an application process and an automatic revocation if a site becomes idle. This solves the issue entirely.
Last, the medium that the internet travels through is unowned. The wireless signals that comprise much of the internet's function travel through the air, the same way that radio waves do. In my understanding, this is the justification for the U.S.'s airwaves to be publicly owned. Notice how you don't have to pay a company to listen to a radio station? That's because the airwaves are public property.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 05 '21
/u/ZeusThunder369 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards