[–] heroinwinsagain 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
put rand paul on the fucking list. what a fucking loser.
[–] heroinwinsagain 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
if trump vetoed this, i would shit a gold brick
[–] 8593430? 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
I would too. But it would be a strong move for Trump; what better way to solidify his support even more and turn some liberal heads than by, more-or-less, defending the people's right to privacy on the nets. How could you call the man a fascist after he defended your right to privacy.
[–] greycloud 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
there hasn't been real privacy on the web anyway. the only thing this changes is who your data goes too. i trust private companies trying to make a buck off me more than i do government agencies that this data went to already. so as far as i am concerned this isn't a problem at all. the true problem happened a long time ago.
[–] AndinBriwel ago
The difference is the client-provider relationship. Before, the product was the internet or mobile access service, and the customer was you. You pay for a service, you receive the service. If you are happy, you keep paying. If you become unhappy, you switch service providers and pay someone else instead. You are the customer, and the service provided is the product sold.
Now, you are no longer the customer. The one paying for your aggregated information is the customer. You are the product. If you are unhappy with the service, the provider couldn't care less, as long as the actual customer, the one paying for your emails, text messages, photos, locations, habbits, etc., is happy. If the customer is happy, the customer continues to pay, and the provider continues to provide the service. Information is the service, the buyer is the customer, and you are the product. The actual internet access service is no longer the product, but has become the machine that manufactures the product.
I know I use them. When doing research for a digital marketing firm in college I found as much as 10% of the population was using them. While this is significant in numbers overall most people do not. I would theorize mobile is even less.
edit: Current percentages could be different now
[–] Sigurdtheold 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
It's funny how a few years ago we had a mixing of votes over this same issue. The real problem here is the lobbyists just rolled some cash out and with both parties acting like retards by voting down the line we get shoveled shit like this. We need money out of politics!
[–] TheStapler 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
In democracy, money == politics.
Actually, persuasion == politics. When degeneracy rules the nation, money is all it takes to buy peoples opinions, which includes the voters that are bought by promises of other people's money. A thousand times, the people have sacrificed their rights for something illusory and usually, stolen goods, so counter-persuasion against the large-scale opinion forming press is how you actually fight "money in politics".
Asking politicians to stop selling themselves is unlikely to succeed, while we could be more informed about what we demand and expect from politicians we do help elect. Asking corporate/globalist news outlets to stop selling themselves is unlikely to succeed, while we could stop consuming their product and financially support truthful news outlets which change the opinion and worldview landscape and enable us to actually work on real problems, as opposed to the created crises that we are usually chasing after. These things are harder than saying "get money out of politics" though, and I'm not saying I live up to this, but I think these are real solutions in part.
[–] num 6 points 7 points 13 points (+13|-6) ago (edited ago)
This isn't a rep vs dem issue at all. Google, facebook and others have been selling your data for years, this bill just levels the playing field because they (The ISPs) are trying to profit more from the pipe they own and supply. If you use SSL which you should, they can't see much outside of IP and URL anyway.
If you wanna get your titties twisted about something, go protest for net neutrality laws.
This is meaningless and is just leveling hte playing field and removing the monopoly from google and facebook and the others who have been selling the shit you give them for years because FREE EMAIL AND CHAT OMG !
You want more jobs? companies need to profit, they wont charge you more but they will sell your data and grow and hire more. This is pretty necessary for growth and it takes the info monopoly away from the content providers who would be dead in the water without the ISPs
tards all worked up over nothin'
[–] AndinBriwel ago (edited ago)
"...they won't charge you more, but they will sell your data and grow and hire more."
In that case, then, just like fakebook and gmale are free, internet service and cel service should be free to me, since I'm now the product of their venture.
The difference is, before this measure, I was the customer of the ISP. I pay them, and they deliver a service. It's a good relationship, most of the time, because it's in their best interest financially to keep me happy. In fact, if they fail to deliver fair service to me, the customer, they cease to exist. I am the customer, and the internet access or mobile service is the product.
Meanwhile, if I have a fakebook acct, I am not a customer of fakebook. They are paid by advertisers to aggregate my habbits, personal views, and interests, and rent my eyeballs to the advertisers. In return for loaning fakebook my eyeballs, they allow me to give them all my information for free. In that situation, the advertiser is the customer, and I am the product.
Welcome to the new world, where the ISP now sells you to any highest bidder. You are now the product, and the service they provide is just a means to farm you. To make it all even better, they now charge you for being farmed. Imagine a strawberry having to pay you to be eaten by you. Except, you're the strawberry.
Welcome to the new world, where the ISP now sells you to any highest bidder.
You mean welcome to the old world, they pretty much had this ability since the first internet service provider opened up shop.
[–] mamwad [S] 2 points 7 points 9 points (+9|-2) ago
Most people have a choice when it comes to search engines, email clients, and social media. Most people do not have much of a choice when it comes to ISPs. If someone really wants to avoid Google and Facebook, they can do so relatively easily. They can use Tutanota for email, ixquick for search, and avoid facebook altogether. Furthermore, Google and facebook are free services, so users might expect that they give up something for them.
Most people don't have a choice when it comes to ISPs, you pay for it, and they you can't stop them from snooping without paying for an additional service or using TOR. They aren't comparable.
[–] num 3 points 3 points 6 points (+6|-3) ago
It's very comparable, this is collecting nothing more than was already being collected.
Now they can just sell the data to advertisers instead of give it away for free to the police. Anyone who is THAT concerned should already be on a VPN on their neighbors WIFI.
[–] Turnip_Time 1 point 14 points 15 points (+15|-1) ago (edited ago)
Reddit is already organizing to try to purchase their browsing history.
EDIT: Here is the site that one of the redditors created for those that might be interested. They are apparently trying to crowdsource the funds. The only problem here is that we have no way of knowing if the guy is a scammer or not.
[–] heretolearn ago
help buy their internet history
https://searchinternethistory.com/