Alternatively, basic stuff like e-mail and payment processing should be provided by the state. After all, the state provides a road network, which is similarly essential and rather more expensive.

▲

JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> basic stuff like e-mail and payment processing should be provided by the state

You're looking at America in 2026 and concluding we want to give the state more control over private lives?

▲

shimman 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, you can give control to the House of Representatives. The House should have way more control over government agencies, it's the people's house. The people deserve to have control.

▲

joquarky 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> it's the people's house

You dropped an adjective: wealthy

	▲	shimman 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No, the Senate, Presidency, and Legislative branches are for the wealthy. The constitution was literally written so a minority of rich people would have the most control over the government. Having state legislatures (who also happened to decide who can vote + how) choose senators, requiring the senate to pass bills written by the house, judges that are chosen by senators. House of reps only serve for 2 years compared to 6 or 4 or lifetime appointments. The 17th amendment is a little over 100 years old. People need to stop treating the US constitution as this "mythical" thing rather than the reality of it being a very undemocratic document that is highly resistant to change. Luckily the house can be expanded with a simple majority IN the house, one way to truly combat this.

▲

tastyfreeze 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The more you ask around the more you will find the real divide in the US is the same as it always has been. There are those that believe a more powerful government will solve all the problems and those that just want the government to leave them alone to solve their own problems.

Thomas Sowell's Conflict of Visions describes the difference well.

	▲	wredcoll 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You make a really good point I think, if the government just leaves us alone then we can solve all of our own problems with the friendly assistance of ma bell/standard oil/google/facebook.

▲

prmoustache 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

E-mail used to be provided by your isp and there were enough different ISPs ( at least in my country ) to not have a duopoly.

▲

SoftTalker 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, but they didn't develop it. ISP email required you to configure IMAP or more likely POP in an email application and did nothing to combat spam. Google came along and offered gmail, easy sign up, no configuration, used your web browser so no other applications to install, spam largely filtered out, just worked.

▲

prmoustache 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The app to install wasn't really an issue given any OS with a default desktop came with an email app.

What brought the popularity of gmail was the huge space provided which at the time felt infinite. I still remember the counter that was showing the size increasing seemingly indefinitely.

	▲	SoftTalker 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, that too. I think the initial sell was a 1GB mailbox. Which was an enormous limit at the time. And another thing the ISPs missed. Most had small limits, "mailbox full" was a common thing and you had to download/delete mail all the time which was annoying.

▲

drnick1 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> used your web browser so no other applications to install

I see this as a downside. Native email clients are much faster and a far better UX than a Web inbox. It's also pretty much required if you juggle multiple accounts.

▲

data-ottawa 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The problem with ISP based email is once you're a customer with their email you can never switch.

▲

WarmWash 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Giving the state control of things to prevent the state from easily spying on people...

▲

Levitz 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The neat thing about the state is that it can act directly off the incentives of the people. The state can supply such service in a private manner, given enough support from the populace.

	▲	cgriswald 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The “incentives of the people” are famously steadfast and resolute in favor of the rights of others.

▲

johnisgood 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not only that, but were it State-implemented, it would be an AWFUL implementation all the way through.

▲

intended 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is the likely direction things are going. The US government can decide that EU officials are out of favor, and then those officials are locked out of Office/Gsuite.

Getting away from American tech has become an actual national security issue.

Ideally you would still have private enterprise create alternatives, but it’s easy to imagine that email, social media will simply be built for citizens by their government.

▲

WarmWash 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm curious the caliber of engineer that will turn down a $175k/yr Microsoft job to take a $45k/yr Government Office of Software job...

	▲	intended 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There seem to be many layoffs, and the hype say that AI has made coders redundant. Who knows? Perhaps you won’t have to depend on the many people who would happily take lower pay for the chance to contribute to their nation. There’s more incentives than pure profit - Government seems capable enough to attract people when it comes to cyber weapons. Governments aren’t currently making these tools, because until last year, private enterprise was good enough. It still is, minus the dependency on America and its political climate. Personally - The issue isn’t engineer availability or salary, but committee based decision making.