| ▲ | dumpsterdiver 9 hours 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? |
|
| ▲ | tossandthrow 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | cindyllm 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | ghurtado 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm not disagreeing with you, but shouldn't free Internet access come before that? | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Internet access doesn't seem to be an issue. Politics is also about making practical choices to advance humanity. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | komali2 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | >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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | palmotea 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > 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 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | palmotea an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | |
| ▲ | xmprt 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
|
|
