Again, a macroeconomic analysis with no explanation of how this is relevant.
> You say I should not be silly but I can believe what I like. Which is it? They aren’t mutually exclusive. > The government does not “own assets” on paper but it has a whole lot of influence over agency Feel free to…
I agree. I have no argument against this.
Nobody is forced to use gmail as a provider. Remember it’s a free service with less commitment to you than a pay as you go mobile phone. Anyone can buy their own domain and there are many providers who will provide…
I’m aware of Parler, but are there other examples?
> I'm pretty sure this is a carrier feature that hasn't been standardised. So not actually part of what it means to be a phone then.
> Different phones have different capabilities, what's there to explain? That your definition of ‘phone’ is meaningless. If phones can have any capability you like, then ‘phone’ doesn’t mean anything. Once you are…
Anti-spam legislation doesn’t regulate the technology. It legislates the behavior of the spammers. This is no different from say, assault, which doesn’t regulate hammers and baseball bats, but makes it illegal to hit…
Don’t be silly. The government doesn’t regulate how these services operate. If you are going to argue that macroeconomic policy means ‘control’, then the government ‘controls’ everything in everyone’s lives at all…
Why? They seem to work fine as they are.
The phone system doesn’t lack regulation. Phone spam is already illegal. The reason for phone/VoIP spam is because the system is too inflexible to make it easy to prevent, and the reason the system is inflexible is that…
This sounds like you are simply describing how advertising works. Cattle do not respond to advertising. People do.
Can you give an example of the kind of conflict you thought was pointless? Early TNG seemed like a new age cult to me, and then it became more real without losing the positivity.
That’s exactly why email has persisted, without any need for regulation.
She seems like exactly the kind of user the iPhone lockdown mode is intended for. Looks like she was using Android.
> Wouldn't these points also apply to the internet itself? Large monopolies in infrastructure, having to teach people what domains are, diplomatic conflicts between nations over access to information/infrastructure,…
How do you explain why landline phones can’t send and receive SMS?
> I think the thing is that people like yourself are probably conscientiously indifferent to the attraction, influence and dependency that “Big Tech” produces. Not at all. I just think it’s obvious that the sentiment…
SMS isn’t the telephone. VoIP mostly isn’t done using phone numbers, and to the extent that it is, is a way to grandfather in a legacy technology. The iPhone is not primarily a telephone. If you are going to argue that…
You can say the same thing about any technology that worked in the past but then failed. It doesn’t mean we should go back to it.
> that could possibly be applied to social media companies as well. No, it can’t because social media isn’t based on phone numbers, and social networks aren’t telephone networks, and each one works differently.
I just text or FaceTime my relatives who are on Facebook. It works just fine. My mother, who doesn’t even have a cellphone, I call via skype to her landline phone. No problem.
How is this relevant?
It doesn’t work well. Telephones haven’t changed for decades and are now practically a dead technology. The wires are used for data, and phone service is grandfathered in. You can reasonably say this is the result of a…
The phone system is a great counterexample. The government effectively established monopolies in phone service. Telephone numbering was not even close to seamless and painless. When dialing was introduced there was…
Again, a macroeconomic analysis with no explanation of how this is relevant.
> You say I should not be silly but I can believe what I like. Which is it? They aren’t mutually exclusive. > The government does not “own assets” on paper but it has a whole lot of influence over agency Feel free to…
I agree. I have no argument against this.
Nobody is forced to use gmail as a provider. Remember it’s a free service with less commitment to you than a pay as you go mobile phone. Anyone can buy their own domain and there are many providers who will provide…
I’m aware of Parler, but are there other examples?
> I'm pretty sure this is a carrier feature that hasn't been standardised. So not actually part of what it means to be a phone then.
> Different phones have different capabilities, what's there to explain? That your definition of ‘phone’ is meaningless. If phones can have any capability you like, then ‘phone’ doesn’t mean anything. Once you are…
Anti-spam legislation doesn’t regulate the technology. It legislates the behavior of the spammers. This is no different from say, assault, which doesn’t regulate hammers and baseball bats, but makes it illegal to hit…
Don’t be silly. The government doesn’t regulate how these services operate. If you are going to argue that macroeconomic policy means ‘control’, then the government ‘controls’ everything in everyone’s lives at all…
Why? They seem to work fine as they are.
The phone system doesn’t lack regulation. Phone spam is already illegal. The reason for phone/VoIP spam is because the system is too inflexible to make it easy to prevent, and the reason the system is inflexible is that…
This sounds like you are simply describing how advertising works. Cattle do not respond to advertising. People do.
Can you give an example of the kind of conflict you thought was pointless? Early TNG seemed like a new age cult to me, and then it became more real without losing the positivity.
That’s exactly why email has persisted, without any need for regulation.
She seems like exactly the kind of user the iPhone lockdown mode is intended for. Looks like she was using Android.
> Wouldn't these points also apply to the internet itself? Large monopolies in infrastructure, having to teach people what domains are, diplomatic conflicts between nations over access to information/infrastructure,…
How do you explain why landline phones can’t send and receive SMS?
> I think the thing is that people like yourself are probably conscientiously indifferent to the attraction, influence and dependency that “Big Tech” produces. Not at all. I just think it’s obvious that the sentiment…
SMS isn’t the telephone. VoIP mostly isn’t done using phone numbers, and to the extent that it is, is a way to grandfather in a legacy technology. The iPhone is not primarily a telephone. If you are going to argue that…
You can say the same thing about any technology that worked in the past but then failed. It doesn’t mean we should go back to it.
> that could possibly be applied to social media companies as well. No, it can’t because social media isn’t based on phone numbers, and social networks aren’t telephone networks, and each one works differently.
I just text or FaceTime my relatives who are on Facebook. It works just fine. My mother, who doesn’t even have a cellphone, I call via skype to her landline phone. No problem.
How is this relevant?
It doesn’t work well. Telephones haven’t changed for decades and are now practically a dead technology. The wires are used for data, and phone service is grandfathered in. You can reasonably say this is the result of a…
The phone system is a great counterexample. The government effectively established monopolies in phone service. Telephone numbering was not even close to seamless and painless. When dialing was introduced there was…