Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cmpolis 2599 days ago
I don't want my ISP determining which content and infrastructure to funded; that seems like an even more broken model.
1 comments

At first I agreed, but it might actually be a good idea if the payment is enforced.

Imagine a scheme in which any traffic has to be bought/paid by the ISP, which is financed by your monthly subscription. So if you open an url, you're gonna have to pay a tiny amount for the request.

But it's probably too easy to game. Just write a malware that keeps downloading from your servers. It would make hijacked chrome extensions insanely profitable. And just imagine the money Mirai's Creator could've gotten with this...

It would also make bigger websites more profitable than lean and clean pages.

So I guess you're right. Not a good idea.

It would be cool if it worked though. sometimes I wish capitalism wouldn't pervert any system at the cost of society. Too bad there aren't any alternatives that actually seem to work.

> It would be cool if it worked though. sometimes I wish capitalism wouldn't pervert any system at the cost of society. Too bad there aren't any alternatives that actually seem to work.

Only if you adopt the mainstream, incorrect definition of what capitalism is. To put the correct definition into laymen terms, capitalism is essentially paying someone less than the value that they produce. A privately-held and operated Ponzi scheme with nearly everyone on the bottom. That's what all the talk about "mode of production" is about. The term does not hold exclusive domain on profit or enterprise. There were markets under feudalism.

To address your second point, there are plenty of alternatives that work. There's even one that's currently showing itself as being outright superior. Look into worker owned cooperatives such as Mondragon in Spain. Both Microsoft and GE have sent representatives there to figure out why their quality level is so high and so consistent.