SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow3941
In an interview just prior to leaving the FCC this month, former Commissioner Mignon Clyburn took aim at the agency where she worked for nearly nine years, saying it has abandoned its mission to safeguard consumers and protect their privacy and speech.
Clyburn, a net neutrality proponent who served as interim FCC chief in 2013, equated the FCC's mission to the Starfleet Prime Directive, saying the agency's top priority is to ensure "affordable, efficient, and effective" access to communications—a directive it has effectively deserted under the new administration, working instead to advance the causes of "last-mile monopolies."
Clyburn spoke to Ars Technica's Jon Brodkin during a phone interview shortly before she left the agency this month.
"I'm an old Trekkie," she said. "I go back to my core, my prime directive of putting consumers first."
Clyburn said that, whereas some of her colleagues shied away from their role as a government regulator, she had embraced it, particularly when it came to internet service providers (ISPs).
"Let's face it," she told Ars, ISPs are "last-mile monopolies."
"In an ideal world, we wouldn't need regulation," Clyburn continued. "We don't live in an ideal world, all markets are not competitive, and when that is the case, that is why agencies like the FCC were constructed. We are here as a substitute for competition."
Source: https://gizmodo.com/fcc-commissioner-says-the-agency-is-a-shill-for-isps-as-1826203464
(Score: 5, Informative) by RamiK on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:08PM (15 children)
Anthropologically speaking, tribal society diverged from the band [wikipedia.org] when we started sedentary agriculture. So technically, it wasn't "out of the barrels of guns" but rather, "out of the fields and fences".
compiling...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:22PM (11 children)
Nothing about agriculture implies coercion.
Though, admittedly, coercion is often the dumbest, easiest, least-skilled way to get a certain results in the short term (such as a system that kind of looks like property rights).
Indeed, capitalism is an iterative process; it doesn't even need to be perfect at first—you just need to start somewhere, and then follow the principle that disputes are the lack of a well-defined contract negotiated in advance of interaction.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:58PM (8 children)
How do you keep other people from eating the food you've grown? Ask them nicely to leave, or aim a spear at them telling them it's yours and they can't have it?
Borders... Fences... Wars... The Us vs. Them mentality only expands beyond the extended family level when there's land to fight over. And if people aren't organized as tribes (since there's nothing worth organizing for), they tend to split apart seasonally or when food/water runs out so coercion doesn't have a chance to take place. This was observed live by anthropologists in Papua New Guinea, Mongolia and Africa all the way to the Inuits.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @08:49PM (6 children)
As the AC pointed out:
A dispute is the lack of a well-defined contract; under capitalism, these disputes decrease in number and severity over time as social interaction becomes increasingly well defined through culturally acceptable dispute resolution, codification in contract negotiation, and then enforcement of said contracts (a service that need not be provided by a monopoly—hence a union of states, or the general lack of one world government, etc.).
Enforcement of a contract is necessarily specified as part of the contract; such enforcement is by definition voluntary, as all parties to the contract agreed to such enforcement prior to interaction.
Here is the other part that the AC already was smart enough to point out:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @09:56PM
Are you SURE you're not the same AC? Cause that seems highly likely with a line like "already was smart enough" lololol
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday May 25 2018, @05:06AM (4 children)
A contract backed up by the use of force.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Friday May 25 2018, @01:50PM (3 children)
to which the parties have actively and explicitly consented at the time of contract formation.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday May 25 2018, @02:23PM (2 children)
Too often there is a power in-balance where one party feels forced and/or one party feels like they're free to break or change the terms.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Friday May 25 2018, @02:41PM (1 child)
I agree that power imbalance is a problem that needs to be solved, but I see it as a separate question from whether human interactions should be governed by violence or consent.
BTW, just curious, what is your native language?
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday May 26 2018, @12:10AM
Consent is always the best and usually works but too often there are people who push things. Contracts often are incomplete, seems there is often things that are left out, sometimes due to it just seeming like its common sense or corner cases.
There are a couple of types of people that will try to take advantage. The rich, cheap boss type and people from a different culture where trying to take every advantage is normal.
Canadian English, using an American spell checker which seems to have corrected a typo (hitting n instead of m) in a weird way.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 24 2018, @11:13PM
Use harsh language [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @08:07PM
O RLY? "Immovable property" does not ring a bell?
A hunter can move, and a hunter can kill. A peasant, in general, can do neither; a perfect prey.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @08:11PM
I never agreed to ready your screed yet here we are. You have violently imposed your bullshit upon my eyeballs, so will you respect my right to not see your crap? Of course not, cause you're a disingenuous punk with too much "vision" for your own good and not enough wisdom to be any use.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 24 2018, @10:31PM (2 children)
Out of us going into?
Every time a collection of people agree on something, there will be dissenters who don't, and who will complain that others' wills are being imposed on them. Ug the caveman learnt that, and he lost two fingers on his left hand for it. They didn't want to kill him, as he was still bloody useful at tracking.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Troll) by Justin Case on Friday May 25 2018, @01:52PM (1 child)
A collection of people cannot do anything. Only the individual people do things.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday May 25 2018, @07:28PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves