• 0 Posts
  • 6 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • ricecake@sh.itjust.workstoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    Cool. You wrote an opinion that perfectly matched the opinion of a particular demographic that’s common on the site, and are now very offended that no one knew you were someone less common.
    Which also entirely draws the conversation away from you saying it’s good that the government pulled funding from an organization that’s doing something good because government messes everything up.

    They’re already a non-profit. Why are you upset that they got money from the government? Wouldn’t the ideal to you be an NGO that got money without being under government control, and was therefore free from business influence as well?

    Linux is a great example. It’s backed by a non-profit foundation, under the direction of mostly corporate advocates. That’s what people talk about when they talk about a non-profit being beholden to corporate money.
    The shape of Linux has steadily been pushed towards being more and more focused on server and data center operations, since that’s what the people in charge of funding allocation care about, and that’s what they’ll direct their parent organizations to contribute developers to working on.

    Your government sucks. I get that. It doesn’t mean I don’t expect more from mine, and it doesn’t mean that I reject the notion that I should have say in the management of the things around me.
    The NGO that you envision will do a better job managing the drainage where I live doesn’t answer to me, and I have no recourse if they mess up and flood my house.

    I’d like something like the NGO you envision, but with public accountability. This is often called a “government”.


  • Yeah, the lobbying question is a complicated one.

    In an ideal world it would be much closer to how the standards committees work. The issue isn’t people sharing their opinions and desires for how the system should work, it’s when they use inequitable means to bias the decision. My industry, security, has lobbied for official guidelines on security requirements for different situations. Makes it easier to tell hospitals they can’t have nurses sharing login credentials: government says that’s bad, and now your insurance says it’s a liability.

    The problem is that lobbying too often comes with stuff like a “we’re always hiring like minded people at our lobbying firm, if you happen to find yourself in the position to do so, give us a call.”.
    It’s too easy for people with a lot of money to make their voices more heard.

    It’s not that the wealthy and business interests should be barred from sharing opinions with legislators, it’s that “volume” shouldn’t be proportional to money. My voice as a person who lives near a river should be comparable to that of the guy who owns the car wash upstream when it comes to questions of how much we care about runoff going into the river.


  • ricecake@sh.itjust.workstoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    So you want it to be run like it is today, but with less money? Do you think they’re going to spread whatever incompetence you see them having via funding?

    Usually when people celebrate the removal of government from a public service it’s because they think it should be arranged to turn a profit.

    You didn’t list your stance on every issue in your comment so I can only assume that you have the rest of the beliefs that I’ve always seen go with that opinion.


  • ricecake@sh.itjust.workstoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 days ago

    people will always mess stuff up. Government is just the group of people you have a say in.

    When the public good gets messed up, I’d rather it be by the people I can vote out than by the people who only answer to shareholders.

    I just don’t understand the persistent belief that a profit motive will magically make something more aligned with the public good.



  • Even corporations understand the value of having a seat at the table. A significant reason for corporate sponsorship of standards groups and such is so that if it comes up, they have a person there who can argue for their interests.
    Not even in an interesting or corrupt way.
    “Our engineers think it would be better to do it this way, any objections?” And then everyone talks about it.

    Leaving means you only get to use what others put together. If your needs don’t fit you just have to cope.

    Corporations love getting stuff for free, but if all it takes to solve a technical problem is cash, that’s great too. Cash is a better way to solve a technical problem than time and engineers.