[ygjb]

I will point out that in Canada, many of our telecoms were run by privately operated, publicly owned organizations (Crown Corporations) that operated at arms length. Until they were sold for pennies on the dollar by governments looking to score a quick win for "fiscal responsibility" and "small government", these organizations operated with a high degree of public scrutiny, and had the goal of offering low cost, reliable services.

By most accounts the quality of service in relation to the price has been awful in most places in Canada, and the few places that still have Crown Corp delivered telecoms are among the happiest customers in that sector.

This same scenario has played out across multiple sectors including oil & gas, electricity and hydroelectric services, and here in BC, transportation services (BC Ferries).

Everyone likes to take a dump on public run services, but practically speaking, they have more oversight and accountability than privately run services.

[b112]

FYI, corps like Bell Canada, Telus, BCttel were not government owned, department or crown corp.

They were just highly protected by government regulation. The only ones allowed to do certain things, along with mandated Canadian ownership requirements. They had a defacto monopoly.

[ygjb]

Yeah, I am talking about Crown Corporations like MTS, Petro-Canada, BC Ferries, and such that were taken private, not the telecoms protectionism that is currently screwing over consumers in Canada, they are quite different.

I don't object to open markets, but I also think there is a space for crown corporations with a mandate to operate competitively (which strong oversight) for the benefit of Canadians (or citizens of $your_nation)

[b112]

There is. I found Petro Canada to be a fascinating use case too.

Inject yourself into an absurd market, with price fixing, to force competition.

And in the long term, it profited us quite well, including as we sold it off.

[scarface74]

So just imagine what happens when the government controls the communications. What happens when “they” get into power and start censoring and controlling communications that you don’t agree with?

In this case “they” are the party with policies that you don’t agree with. There was a study in the US that the government fails to pass policies that 80%+ of the population agrees with.

One easy example is making cannabis legal federally. People who vote Republican and Democrat both support it by an overwhelming majority. But it couldn’t pass.

[ygjb]

Some of us still live in functioning democracies. Also, it's worth pointing out that relying on privately owned or publicly traded corporations is not an effective strategy for preserving freedom; those businesses will only do that as long as they can justify it to their shareholders (private or public), and are subject to whatever laws apply in the jurisdictions they reside in (kind of the reason alot of 'western' companies prefer to either not do business, or conduct business via arms length entities in countries like Russia, China, and other places).

[scarface74]

So the US has the highest incarceration rate of any western country. The police routinely stop and harass minorities for no other reason than the color of their skin, the judicial system routinely hands out harsher punishment for the same crime when the defendant is minority, etc.

Even when you take race out of the equation, when you look at the congressional make up in the US and compare it to the party more people actually voted for, it’s just the opposite. The last president didn’t win the popular vote.

Private corporations don’t have the power of the state to coerce me to do anything. The government does. Why would I want to give the government more power? We see both dudes trying to control communications.

Apple is definitely not working with China at arms length. Neither is Microsoft. Google still makes the little hardware it does in China.

As far as functioning government you mean Europe where laws were passed like the GDPR that only led to cookie warnings on every web page?

[ygjb]

I don't know what to tell you. The people of the United States have continuously ceded power to their government, and the corporations that wield influence over it, while being spoonfed lies about what freedom actually means by government and media.

The right to bear arms supercedes the right to live in safe communities (and as a former infantry man, I can assert that more weapons in the hands of untrained civilians does not make communities more safe).

The right to an health care (abortion) is superceded by so called "religious freedoms".

The right to vote is superceded by politicians who rewrite election laws and electoral districts to choose their constituents.

Freedom to discriminate is beginning to supercede the right to freedom from discrimination.

These problems aren't unique to the United States, and in Canada we have our own issues.

> Private corporations don’t have the power of the state to coerce me to do anything.

* blinks in private law enforcement, the radical expansion of surveillance by private corporations, and lack of accountability of tech companies *

Uh, yeah, that's by design, but on a global basis, the design is breaking. There are more and more exceptionally wealthy individuals and corporations that are wielding power and working in domains that have typically been the purview of states and governments.

We need stronger regulation of corporations globally, and strong treaties that unify global regulation and information sharing of how that regulation occurs, or we will continue to cede freedom and governance to the whims of corporations that will wield significant influence over elected officials. One thing going for unelected government, they generally DGAF about the whims of corporations, and we have seen what some countries are willing to do in order to preserve influence over corporations (I would love to hear an honest, unbiased tell all from Jack Ma for example).

[scarface74]

And this is my point. Because of the makeup of the US government - by the constitution - the red states have more influence on the government than their populations should allow. You add on gerrymandering, it gets worse.

It’s a structural issue. The majority of people in the US are for universal healthcare, freedom of choice, more gun control, etc. The majority of states oppose those things.

We already have to deal with tyranny of the minority in our own country, why would we want other countries involved too?

None of the issues you raised have anything to do with private companies.

No one is forcing me to use any of the Big Tech companies’ services. They can’t force me not to state my opinion like the federal government can - there are laws in some states where abortion providers must tell their patients things that are untrue. Other states have laws forbidding doctors from asking patients about whether they have guns in their house.

As far as myself, I have a lot greater chance being treated fairly in tech (where I have been working for 25 years) than if I as minority get pulled over by the police (the government).

[jokethrowaway]

@ygjb a few points:

> The right to bear arms supercedes the right to live in safe communities (and as a former infantry man, I can assert that more weapons in the hands of untrained civilians does not make communities more safe).

True, they need training. In 1966 the city of Orlando trained women to shot and the number of rape incidents dropped 90%.

> The right to an health care (abortion) is superceded by so called "religious freedoms".

That's not health care, that's killing another human being. Your freedom ends where the life of another human being begins.

> The right to vote is superceded by politicians who rewrite election laws and electoral districts to choose their constituents.

Are you referring to forbidding criminals to vote and democrats paying what's due for them so they can vote (presumably left)? I can't say I feel too strongly about that because voting is pretty useless. Rich people will anyway buy the government whether that's right or left.

> Freedom to discriminate is beginning to supercede the right to freedom from discrimination.

This is a massive problem, I agree. Positive discrimination and allowing companies to favor women and minorities (excluding asians, they're doing good enough on their own) is pure racism / sexism.

[scarface74]

I’m going to avoid the political side of abortion. But does that also mean that fathers should be forced to pay child support from conception? Should they be counted in the census? But do you really think these same politicians care about life that are “pro life”. But who are opposed to any government policies that protect life after they are born like - universal healthcare, police reform, paid parental leave, etc?

The “War on Crime” and the “War on Drugs” made people criminals as they targeted minorities until the opioid epidemic started affecting “rural America” and then drugs became a “disease”.

But he is also referring to gerrymandering and having two ballot boxes in cities like Houston to make it harder to vote. In GA they wanted to cut out early voting on Sundays because Black churches would encourage people to vote after they left church and transport them there in church busses.

[jokethrowaway]

> Some of us still live in functioning democracies.

Where I am now I need to show a QR code to buy food and there is a curfew at 10pm. None of these measures had been discussed in the latest elections and they even violate existing laws.

I don't know how you can call most of the world a functioning democracy.

[ygjb]

Yep, vaccine passports suck, and I say that as a supporter of them. I am not going to argue the merits or flaws of them with a throwaway account, but they have not been found to violate laws, and no jurisdiction in Canada that I am aware of has had to use exception powers (not withstanding clause, or reasonable limits under Section 1 of the Charter).

As for not being discussed in the latest elections, "if we are elected, we will implement vaccine passports" was largely the premise for the last Federal election in Canada, and while they didn't win in a landslide, Canadians voted in a government to implement them.

I don't think "most of the world" is a functioning democracy, but in Canada, our democracy is functioning, if continuing to be undermined by our political parties. Democracy around the world is at risk, and spreading misinformation about actual election outcomes and unpopular, but legal policies doesn't really help.

[unionpivo]

> I don't know how you can call most of the world a functioning democracy.

At lest where I live the (sometimes silent) majority supports such actions. We are having elections in few months and its not a big issue because most but few fringe parties and people support such actions.

That's the democracy for you. And most of the time it works, except when it doesn't :) (As far as I know nobody came with a better system jet.)