The Next President is...

[ViperMan]

 

2 hours ago, jazzdude said:

That's a foul, but legal based on the policies pushed by Republicans. An ISP should not have the power to unilaterally decide to block internet traffic.

But it's put Republicans in a weird spot: they don't want ISPs regulated or treated as common infrastructure, but that means that an ISP, as a business, can block whatever they want. They haven't really done so in the past because there hasn't been a business case for doing so (although streaming service can and do get throttled)

So the GOP (and the region served by that ISP) is reaping what the GOP sowed, and suddenly are surprised that their political platform has real consequences.

When you put all your faith in the free market, you are putting your faith in the market keeping the same values as you; otherwise, you can get screwed over real quick. And now conservatives (primarily on the far right) are getting screwed by the system they profess to love.

So it's internet access a right? Or is it a luxury? Because right now conservatives are screaming it's a right, and yet have blocked efforts for years to have internet treated as infrastructure, or to provide access to the poor ("Obama phone"), or to force ISPs to improve the physical internet infrastructure especially to rural areas.

This one does.

I thought Ajit Pai was a total piece of shit. His is a prototypical example of the revolving door of lobbyists becoming a governing authority and then returning to industry after having had their impact.

The basic issue with not regulating it as common infrastructure is that the government has granted monopolies to ISPs and other utility companies to use public easements and rights-of-way to install their infrastructure. Not everyone has access to that. Not everyone is allowed to have access to that. So there are companies that have been given special privilege to conduct their business, and hence, should be regulated appropriately. That means Net Neutrality.

[N730]

My point isn't about evidence that will prove a court case or allow military action.  It's about Tulsi's honest or willful ignorance of a broad agreement that Assad is a bad guy.  Her statements ignore that agreement as well as suggest that there is no evidence and that the claims of Assad's war crimes are fabricated.  She should acknowledge that at a minimum, there are legitimate suspicions about his culpability.  That's why she clearly comes off as an apologist. 
And yeah, I've had to deal with bad/incomplete intel.  
Anyways, I might be splitting hairs.  The horse is so dead at this point it's glue.  
 

To be fair, he probably charmed her when she went to privately meet with him on her own.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[dream big]

7 hours ago, jazzdude said:

That's an option too.

However, impeachment, if successful, would end Trump's ability to hold a federal office in the future, as well as be a formal condemnation from Congress on his actions.

So those are the only reasons I can think of to do it this late in his term. Outside pure politics.

It’s a waste of time and reiterates why 90% of Congress is worthless; and one of the frustrations that influenced the Trump movement in the first place. Maybe if Congress actually did their job it would help regain some trust in the very institutions we need to rebuild the political unity in this country.

After recent events, I wouldn’t worry about Trump even thinking about reelection. “Formal condemnation”, who cares? There has been plenty of condemnation from both sides, maybe focus on why Capitol police officers just let the rioters waltz in, or unfuck the NDAA that you passed several months late, literally anything having to do with their jobs.
 

 

[jazzdude]

 
This one does.
I thought Ajit Pai was a total piece of shit. His is a prototypical example of the revolving door of lobbyists becoming a governing authority and then returning to industry after having had their impact.
The basic issue with not regulating it as common infrastructure is that the government has granted monopolies to ISPs and other utility companies to use public easements and rights-of-way to install their infrastructure. Not everyone has access to that. Not everyone is allowed to have access to that. So there are companies that have been given special privilege to conduct their business, and hence, should be regulated appropriately. That means Net Neutrality.

Makes two of us then. You're assessment is spot on.

It's been frustrating though seeing so many conservatives against net neutrality because they viewed it as anti business, and that the free market will self correct to deliver the "best" product or service, not realizing that regulations should be in place to stop exactly what is happening now with ISPs. That, or they just accept dealing with Comcast and their monopoly in many markets as a fact of life.

There are other tech issues that are interesting as well. I mentioned the shift to electronic banking earlier: should the government have some form of electronic banking not reliant on private banks or credit card companies to complete financial transactions? What about email and the servers to support it (after all, the federal government funds USPS for mail delivery, and email is much the modern letter)? It helps support our right to openly communicate. You could even argue that extend to social media platforms, though I'm not sure how that would be implemented (not sure how the government can regulate Facebook without giving Facebook a list of things people can't say, which would violate the spirit of the 1st amendment). I don't have the answers to these questions, and they are small issues, but they are interesting enough to merit more investigation/discussion on how technology changes our society, and what government needs to do to ensure our basic/fundamental rights are upheld.

Sure, some conservatives may chuck spears saying that's not the founder's intent, but times change and new technologies are being invented. It's just like when the left says the 2nd amendment only applies to firearms that existed in the founder's times: it's stupid, and misses the original intent of the founder's by being over simplistic and taking an overly literal interpretation of the constitution.

[jazzdude]

It’s a waste of time and reiterates why 90% of Congress is worthless; and one of the frustrations that influenced the Trump movement in the first place. Maybe if Congress actually did their job it would help regain some trust in the very institutions we need to rebuild the political unity in this country.
After recent events, I wouldn’t worry about Trump even thinking about reelection. “Formal condemnation”, who cares? There has been plenty of condemnation from both sides, maybe focus on why Capitol police officers just let the rioters waltz in, or un the NDAA that you passed several months late, literally anything having to do with their jobs.

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this, and yes, Congress has it's own issues. But that's okay, and I think the fact respectful conversation from different viewpoints is still happening is great, and lends itself to rebuilding a sense of unity within our country.

Congress is doing their job as being a check on the executive branch. And yes, practically it doesn't change the outcome. But if successful, it officially captures and condemns the actions of the President. It might not affect us as individual citizens directly, but it does matter in rebuilding trust in the office of the President and Congress (as a check/balance on the executive branch). And at worst, Congress wastes 2 weeks, which they've wasted on lesser things.

On the NDAA, yes, it was late, but Trump vetoed it for not including the right to sue social media companies (elimination of section 230 protections), which has absolutely nothing to do with defense, and required Congress to revote to override the veto. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had the NDAA approved until after the administration change.

Then Senate Republicans tied increased stimulus payments (that Trump tweeted he wanted) to the elimination of section 230. I think Trump saw the writing on the wall that he was going to eventually get blocked on social media (only reason he hadn't was twitter felt as president, they should allow him to continue to use their platform, which I'm sure brought a lot of people into twitter to see the craziness), and that he'd have no legal recourse to get unblocked because twitter is a private business that is protected by section 230.

Does anyone think Trump is going to quietly fade away after he leaves office, like previous presidents traditionally have? And yes, Obama did somewhat break that tradition with public criticism of Trump, which was disappointing, but hasn't seemed to be in the forefront of any political movement, or at least has started out of the media's eye. But Trump has plenty of people who believe he was the rightful winner of the election, who believe it enough to break into Congress.

[jazzdude]

The other crazy thing in all of this is our election timelines. With faster modes of travel (or the ability to telecommute), modern communications, and technology to help speed up counting votes, why is our election so far from our from the actual inauguration?

I can see in the past needing time to:
- Manually count votes by hand
- Travel on foot or by horse to aggregate results at multiple levels
-Having electors gather and vote
-Having congressmen travel to deliver that vote to Congress
-Time to communicate the overall electoral votes and winner back to their home states and to the candidates
-Travel for the winning candidate to DC (if they aren't already there)

I can see why that took months originally, but maybe we should shorten it given modern technologies we enjoy now, versus keeping lame duck administrations who's only reason not to do something crazy in that time period is tradition (which arguably has now been broken).

[slackline]

Listening to the impeachment debates going on right now.  Absolutely disgusted by 2 things: the Trump apology tour by republicans, and the zero responsibility accepted by anyone on either side of the aisle.  Everything is the fault of the other guy, none of anyone's actions, vitriol and rhetoric caused any of the current problems.  It was all caused by the other guys...  Time for every single one of them to be voted out.  Zero incumbents should be voted back in for the next few elections!  

[Prosuper]

3 hours ago, slackline said:

Listening to the impeachment debates going on right now.  Absolutely disgusted by 2 things: the Trump apology tour by republicans, and the zero responsibility accepted by anyone on either side of the aisle.  Everything is the fault of the other guy, none of anyone's actions, vitriol and rhetoric caused any of the current problems.  It was all caused by the other guys...  Time for every single one of them to be voted out.  Zero incumbents should be voted back in for the next few elections!  

Be nice to see the states get together and impose term limits and start using the 17th amendment by state legislators pick the two Senators from their state. That way they are answerable to their state house not their donors. 

[Swamp Yankee]

40 minutes ago, Prosuper said:

Be nice to see the states get together and impose term limits and start using the 17th amendment by state legislators pick the two Senators from their state. That way they are answerable to their state house not their donors. 

 

3 hours ago, slackline said:

Listening to the impeachment debates going on right now.  Absolutely disgusted by 2 things: the Trump apology tour by republicans, and the zero responsibility accepted by anyone on either side of the aisle.  Everything is the fault of the other guy, none of anyone's actions, vitriol and rhetoric caused any of the current problems.  It was all caused by the other guys...  Time for every single one of them to be voted out.  Zero incumbents should be voted back in for the next few elections!  

Agreed on the impeachment debates.  Ultimately a waste of time.  No way will it get 2/3 of the Senate.  Trump will go back to Mar-a-Lago saying, 'See? They tried again! Tremendous hoax! I'm the best President in history and did nothing wrong!'   That would be a gross mischaracterization on Trump's part, but he won't care.  Same thing as the Russian investigation.  Somehow Trump was able to spin it as a 'hoax'. Which was also a mischaracterization given that there were 34 indictments, 7 guilty pleas, and 5 prison terms.  Regardless, his base bought it just as they will in this second impeachment. 

[slackline]

23 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

 

Agreed on the impeachment debates.  Ultimately a waste of time.  No way will it get 2/3 of the Senate.  Trump will go back to Mar-a-Lago saying, 'See? They tried again! Tremendous hoax! I'm the best President in history and did nothing wrong!'   That would be a gross mischaracterization on Trump's part, but he won't care.  Same thing as the Russian investigation.  Somehow Trump was able to spin it as a 'hoax'. Which was also a mischaracterization given that there were 34 indictments, 7 guilty pleas, and 5 prison terms.  Regardless, his base bought it just as they will in this second impeachment. 

🤣 careful saying that on here.  Some ardent believers in the hoaxness of Russia and Trump.  

[Pooter]

One of the dumbest side effects of this ordeal is that the California covid shitstorm currently happening is going to be completely swept under the rug. 
 

It would be nice if blue states with insane lockdown rules had to answer the mail when they spike just as bad or worse than the evil  Floridas of the world.  But I guess trump and the far right taking a steaming dump in the halls of the capitol kind of overshadows that. 

[Swamp Yankee]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

One of the dumbest side effects of this ordeal is that the California covid shitstorm currently happening is going to be completely swept under the rug. 
 

It would be nice if blue states with insane lockdown rules had to answer the mail when they spike just as bad or worse than the evil  Floridas of the world.  But I guess trump and the far right taking a steaming dump in the halls of the capitol kind of overshadows that. 

The media and I guess much of the populace has the attention span of a fruit fly. 

[ViperMan]

On 1/12/2021 at 7:17 PM, jazzdude said:

Makes two of us then. You're assessment is spot on.

It's been frustrating though seeing so many conservatives against net neutrality because they viewed it as anti business, and that the free market will self correct to deliver the "best" product or service, not realizing that regulations should be in place to stop exactly what is happening now with ISPs. That, or they just accept dealing with Comcast and their monopoly in many markets as a fact of life.

There are other tech issues that are interesting as well. I mentioned the shift to electronic banking earlier: should the government have some form of electronic banking not reliant on private banks or credit card companies to complete financial transactions? What about email and the servers to support it (after all, the federal government funds USPS for mail delivery, and email is much the modern letter)? It helps support our right to openly communicate. You could even argue that extend to social media platforms, though I'm not sure how that would be implemented (not sure how the government can regulate Facebook without giving Facebook a list of things people can't say, which would violate the spirit of the 1st amendment). I don't have the answers to these questions, and they are small issues, but they are interesting enough to merit more investigation/discussion on how technology changes our society, and what government needs to do to ensure our basic/fundamental rights are upheld.

Sure, some conservatives may chuck spears saying that's not the founder's intent, but times change and new technologies are being invented. It's just like when the left says the 2nd amendment only applies to firearms that existed in the founder's times: it's stupid, and misses the original intent of the founder's by being over simplistic and taking an overly literal interpretation of the constitution.

Some interesting analysis, to be sure.

In a purely "capitalist" world, sure, let Comcast operate unchecked. Until then, though, they need gutter bumpers.

In regards to banking (et al), I could see good reason for lots of additional government services to be made available, the follow-up question then becomes "who would use it?" Checking accounts are already free...can't get cheaper than that unless you decide to pay someone to have a government checking account! My banking is already super convenient - I never even have to go to one. I have the service, but it's basically invisible to me.

Either way, I think we're witnessing the beginnings of the shift to broad decentralization of many technologies and services - banking is only one such instance. Reference Bitcoin, and all of the other digital currencies cropping up/gaining acceptance. Personally, I think if you can figure out what the societal/global impact of mass decentralization and removal of "middlemen" across the board is going to be, you'd be in a great place to predict the future.

[ViperMan]

On 1/12/2021 at 8:13 PM, jazzdude said:

The other crazy thing in all of this is our election timelines. With faster modes of travel (or the ability to telecommute), modern communications, and technology to help speed up counting votes, why is our election so far from our from the actual inauguration?

I can see in the past needing time to:
- Manually count votes by hand
- Travel on foot or by horse to aggregate results at multiple levels
-Having electors gather and vote
-Having congressmen travel to deliver that vote to Congress
-Time to communicate the overall electoral votes and winner back to their home states and to the candidates
-Travel for the winning candidate to DC (if they aren't already there)

I can see why that took months originally, but maybe we should shorten it given modern technologies we enjoy now, versus keeping lame duck administrations who's only reason not to do something crazy in that time period is tradition (which arguably has now been broken).

I see your point technically, but I do think there is good reason to hold the vote well in advance of the change-over of power. For one, it gives time to prepare for a swap out of the government. No surprises, plenty of time for the new team to plan while the old team is still in control. Also, it gives the country time to breathe and begin to adapt to their new reality.

On the topic of elections, though, one thing I do think we could move towards is what Negatory brought up earlier: ranked-choice voting, or at least some sort of voting scheme where it's not simple 1-on-1. Computerized voting systems eliminate the difficulty inherent in counting using such schemes and would be a welcome modification of our democratic process.

The current system breeds polarization and also drives "grouping" where it wouldn't otherwise take place (i.e. I'm not aligned with faction "A", but I'm more aligned with it than faction "B", so I'm with "A"). Having some version of a ranked-choice system would allow moderate voices to prevail, as the motivation to vote out of fear would evaporate (i.e. voting against the other guy - which was our last two elections, at least). Then the winner would be closest to center and if it wasn't your guy that won, the one that did would very likely be pretty close to what you wanted anyway, increasing your trust in government. All for a very simple adaptation to boot.

Instead, we get one clown show or another driving the bus. Personally, I love being in the back seat when numb nuts up front is going full-scale deflection one way or the other.

[pcola]

For all the folks complaining that Trump has been muzzled, ya know, there’s a way for him to get his message out:
When’s the last time this podium was used? Seemed to work fine for every president preceding Trump. Sorry, but I always thought Twitter was an inappropriate place for presidential messaging anyway. Let’s see the man show his face and explain himself. 

Actually just a few days before you posted this. He did just that. Did you miss it because it wasn’t covered by any leftist news outlets?

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[pcola]

And my apologies for the old reply that may as well be 10 years old given the pace of modern attention spans. But still relevant. As is all this old stuff:


[/url]
IMHBAO, this rhetoric over the last 4 years has done more to cause the insurrection of last week than anything coming from the White House.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[brabus]

I’ve seen social media/news splattered with “getting kicked off for violating a TOS isn’t suppressing free speech, get over it cry babies!” What these people haven’t grasped is the majority are pissed about the double standard. Kick Trump off, that’s fine, but you better be kicking everyone else off too who violates TOS, regardless of political leaning, party affiliation, group affiliation, etc. If you don’t and are choosing to punt people off your platform you disagree with politically while looking the other way for people you do agree with, well that’s suppression. The double standard is what people are pissed about - to the point the ACLU is concerned about it, and the Twitter CEO admitted they need to work on being more uniform across the board because not doing so is dangerous. I’m sure Jack only said that to save face after the recent backlash. 

[jazzdude]

I see your point technically, but I do think there is good reason to hold the vote well in advance of the change-over of power. For one, it gives time to prepare for a swap out of the government. No surprises, plenty of time for the new team to plan while the old team is still in control. Also, it gives the country time to breathe and begin to adapt to their new reality.

The time to prepare and adapt is only because that's how it's always been for us, and what we are used to. It makes it hard to really do anything major (like prepare budgets, or major initiatives) when you know what your working on doesn't matter because as soon as the new administration is sworn in, you'll have to redo it all with new guidance. So it creates a lot of wasted time in government. And for the average citizen, it just doesn't matter. If you're candidate lost, it doesn't matter if you have 1 day or 2 months to adjust, you'll just have to come to terms with it (preferably without violently storming the Capitol, but I digress).

And assumes the incumbent won't do anything out of spite, especially with how much executive power has grown. What happens if the president decides they are done with North Korea and orders a nuclear attack on them on Jan 19? Singlular authority placed in the President, with no check on their decision, outside the missleer in the capsule deciding to disobey the order to launch.

If we shorten the time, we'll adapt our processes and norms. A candidate that has a good chance of winning should have a list of appointees for key positions going into the election, but if not, all of those positions usually have a career deputy that can keep everything running while appointments are sorted out.

I do like ranked order voting. However, implementing would be challenging. Do you eliminate party primaries? Do you allow anyone that meets the qualifications to get on the ballot? What happens to political parties? We'll never get it though because it means the political parties will have to give up a significant amount of power and control over the election process. They lose control over the narrative, and would lead to a fracturing of the party's position and ability to vote as a block. All of this is good for the voter though, but when have the political parties really cared for the voter except as a means to access power?

[pawnman]

6 hours ago, ViperMan said:

I see your point technically, but I do think there is good reason to hold the vote well in advance of the change-over of power. For one, it gives time to prepare for a swap out of the government. No surprises, plenty of time for the new team to plan while the old team is still in control. Also, it gives the country time to breathe and begin to adapt to their new reality.

 

In advance, maybe.  Two and a half months in advance seems excessive.  Keep the vote where it is, have the next president in office before Christmas.  Plenty of time to do swapping out.  And not much gets done in government around the holidays anyway.

[jazzdude]

Some interesting analysis, to be sure.
In a purely "capitalist" world, sure, let Comcast operate unchecked. Until then, though, they need gutter bumpers.
In regards to banking (et al), I could see good reason for lots of additional government services to be made available, the follow-up question then becomes "who would use it?" Checking accounts are already free...can't get cheaper than that unless you decide to pay someone to have a government checking account! My banking is already super convenient - I never even have to go to one. I have the service, but it's basically invisible to me.
Either way, I think we're witnessing the beginnings of the shift to broad decentralization of many technologies and services - banking is only one such instance. Reference Bitcoin, and all of the other digital currencies cropping up/gaining acceptance. Personally, I think if you can figure out what the societal/global impact of mass decentralization and removal of "middlemen" across the board is going to be, you'd be in a great place to predict the future.

Checking accounts are free, but often only if you maintain a certain amount of money in the account. If you're struggling to make ends meet and are living paycheck to paycheck, a checking account could be an extra expense you have to deal with. Same with ATM fees. Or buying checks. And this assumes you have a device with internet connectivity to check your balance instead of maintaining a checking ledger and going it adds up at the end of the month. And you may have to pay for paper statements.

I agree we're seeing a change due to technology, but I don't think it's so much a decentralization as it is a flattening of the system and eliminating the middlemen (which you've mentioned).

Better communications technologies and automation allows the end users more direct access to core businesses. This is great for both the consumer and for the business providing that core good or service.

However, so many businesses fill the middleman role, or employ a large portion of people acting as middlemen (just processing paperwork). What happens when those jobs are eliminated (or outsourced some where cheaper)? Where do they go to earn a living? A lot of outsourcing concerns have generally been to overseas, but the pandemic has shown US companies they can outsource within the US to cheaper cost of living areas and drive down personnel costs (much cheaper to hire an engineer living in Kansas than one in California). This can also drive significant changes in worker's lives, as they may be forced to move (without assistance) to compete for potentially their own job, or just suck up the hit on income and make it work. AI and machine learning is still in its infancy, but as those technologies mature, they risk eliminating creative work (like engineering, analysis, and design), further exacerbating technologies impact on the workforce.

The free market doesn't really care what happens to those people that are out of work due to automation or outsourcing, so long as there are consumers out there to but their products or services. And as long as the government protects the businesses from violence (though maintaining normal law and order), businesses don't have an incentive to care about what happens to their former workers or their impact on society. But desperate people will resort to desperate measures, so unless we as a society (either through government, or "ethical" employers) make changes to adapt to how technology is changing society, we probably will see more civil unrest in the future.

[slackline]

Checking accounts are free, but often only if you maintain a certain amount of money in the account. If you're struggling to make ends meet and are living paycheck to paycheck, a checking account could be an extra expense you have to deal with. Same with ATM fees. Or buying checks. And this assumes you have a device with internet connectivity to check your balance instead of maintaining a checking ledger and going it adds up at the end of the month. And you may have to pay for paper statements.

I agree we're seeing a change due to technology, but I don't think it's so much a decentralization as it is a flattening of the system and eliminating the middlemen (which you've mentioned).

Better communications technologies and automation allows the end users more direct access to core businesses. This is great for both the consumer and for the business providing that core good or service.

However, so many businesses fill the middleman role, or employ a large portion of people acting as middlemen (just processing paperwork). What happens when those jobs are eliminated (or outsourced some where cheaper)? Where do they go to earn a living? A lot of outsourcing concerns have generally been to overseas, but the pandemic has shown US companies they can outsource within the US to cheaper cost of living areas and drive down personnel costs (much cheaper to hire an engineer living in Kansas than one in California). This can also drive significant changes in worker's lives, as they may be forced to move (without assistance) to compete for potentially their own job, or just suck up the hit on income and make it work. AI and machine learning is still in its infancy, but as those technologies mature, they risk eliminating creative work (like engineering, analysis, and design), further exacerbating technologies impact on the workforce.

The free market doesn't really care what happens to those people that are out of work due to automation or outsourcing, so long as there are consumers out there to but their products or services. And as long as the government protects the businesses from violence (though maintaining normal law and order), businesses don't have an incentive to care about what happens to their former workers or their impact on society. But desperate people will resort to desperate measures, so unless we as a society (either through government, or "ethical" employers) make changes to adapt to how technology is changing society, we probably will see more civil unrest in the future.

We’ve worried about automation taking people’s jobs at every new innovation that simplifies/eliminates jobs people used to do, and guess what, it’s always for nothing. The market adapts, new markets/niches appear and those people find different things to do.

You sound smarter than me in this topic, so I imagine you already know about how this happens. The US has long since moved away from a production based economy to a services based economy. Maybe we’re moving a little back in that direction by bringing some of that production back to US soil, but it’s never going to be like it was in the 80’s and earlier.

It might be a rough transition, but our society will adapt and create different jobs for those middle men.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[arg]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

In advance, maybe.  Two and a half months in advance seems excessive.  Keep the vote where it is, have the next president in office before Christmas.  Plenty of time to do swapping out.  And not much gets done in government around the holidays anyway.

FIFY

[jazzdude]

We’ve worried about automation taking people’s jobs at every new innovation that simplifies/eliminates jobs people used to do, and guess what, it’s always for nothing. The market adapts, new markets/niches appear and those people find different things to do.

You sound smarter than me in this topic, so I imagine you already know about how this happens. The US has long since moved away from a production based economy to a services based economy. Maybe we’re moving a little back in that direction by bringing some of that production back to US soil, but it’s never going to be like it was in the 80’s and earlier.

It might be a rough transition, but our society will adapt and create different jobs for those middle men.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agree that the market adapts, and people will find new ways to make money.

The hard part is that automation and the job shifts it can cause increases the wealth gap in our country. It can also make it difficult for new businesses to complete against established competitors who can make full use of technology to drive down costs to a point a new entrant can't compete.

This allows for an accumulation of wealth, which then brings power/influence to the those at the top of the business. It begins to give them increased access to and influence on political leaders, since the business executive's business decisions can have big effects in an elected official's district over you standard constituent.

Automation and technology significantly boosts worker productivity, but workers generally don't see pay increases with that increased productivity, unless there is a union/collective bargaining happening.

We've been moving to a services based economy like you mentioned. But we've also seen service companies start to move toward the extensive use of "independent contractors" to execute their businesses as a core businesses model. And since they are independent contractors, many worker protections aren't granted, and benefits like medical care, which have traditionally been obtained through employers in the US, or sick leaves, are now the responsibility of the individual. So great for business, not so great for the individual.

There's been a lot of resistance from Republicans to increase corporate taxes, or tax increases for the wealthy (income or capital gains). And those that might support it are afraid that the Dems will squander that money on what they see as government overreach. So this gives those at the top of major corporations a twofold advantage: their business is taxed less, driving up profits and their bonuses, and those increased bonuses from the company profits aren't taxes at what they used to be. Meanwhile, they are protected by the police and the legal system (funded by taxes) from their workers banding together and striking, or threatening to "burn down the factory" in response to poor working condition or wages. They could pay their workers more, but why? They don't have options to move to a better opportunity, otherwise they would've done so already.

I guess I'm saying that maybe we should think proactively regarding the effects technology has or can have on our country, both at the macro level and for individuals, rather than waiting for a crises to develop and scrambling for a solution (just like in the whole "is internet access common infrastructure, or a modern luxury" debate). But I'm not going to hold my breath that Congress will be proactive, and that large businesses won't be pitching their financial interests to Congress through lobbyists. But one can hope.

[Negatory]

14 hours ago, brabus said:

If you don’t and are choosing to punt people off your platform you disagree with politically while looking the other way for people you do agree with, well that’s suppression.

https://www.newsweek.com/former-aclu-lawyer-says-course-twitters-ban-trump-censorship-1560970
 

Suppression and first amendment violations are literally only offenses if the government does it. Not a private organization. Twitter is a private organization. The government, whether you like it or not, had no part in this decision. In fact, I’d say that they would have chosen the opposite result. I don’t think your legal argument or points really have much substance here.

Also, Twitter has no legal requirement to follow their terms of service how you understand it - they can interpret it however they want. The free market principal here is that if they abuse their power, you’ll totally go find another service. Technically, they could kick off all conservatives. You are ALLOWED to suppress free speech if it’s your own message board. Do you think some of the conservative message boards would let AOC and Bernie spread their messages easily?

But from a moral perspective, I get that it’s messed up. We have handed over a lot of trust and the keys to people who run the internet, while not ensuring to make sure it stays fair or regulated. And these tech companies have been allowed to gobble up all their competition and essentially become monopolies. Caveat emptor and the free market doesn’t always work out in the long term. Especially not in this cases And I agree that I would have preferred to see Trump not be banned. But i still don’t think it’s illegal under our current law.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Negatory

[brabus]

@Negatory There you go again responding without actually reading what I wrote. I never brought legality or the constitution into my statement even remotely, I simply said picking and choosing who is suppressed (e.g. double standard) is what most people are pissed about. The group who actually think Twitter did something illegal/unconstitutional is wrong (we agree there). I hope you vehemently support the Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.