Why is BK trying to look so stupid. They appear to actually be for net-neutrality by showing a non-regulated BK that has a bunch of crazy things that no one would ever pay for like a $26 fast lane Whopper. It's scare mongering and playing on emotions really.
But the irony is there is no burger-neutrality in the real world and none of the featured horrors has happened. There is a free market that has prevented all of the things they are espousing that a free market internet would cause (but somehow has not occurred in other markets). So it is like they are making an argument against net-neutrality.
Am I missing something here?
Perhaps they are just saying that if BK had zero competition, there would be price gouging somehow. But there IS competition in the ISP market for almost everyone. If ISP's ever start doing crazy things, it's just going to open up the door for more competitors too. In some places where there wasn't good competition. ISP's were told they couldn't do certain things because of antitrust laws. Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem.
I see people exclaiming their shame often of the lack of good internet service in the USA compared to Hong Kong ETC. I know the geographical challenges are often stated as a reason why. That is true in some cases, but what many people don't realize is that government has made it too difficult and expensive for competitors to come into the market. Bit ISP's have even lobbied for more laws and regulations in some cases because they can afford it and it will actually cost them less than having competition.
So government causes a problem with laws and regulations that it passes, then people want it to pass more laws to compensate for a hypothetical problem that the government in the first place. So in the end we have all this bureaucracy mucking everything up just to get us back to the equilibrium that a free market had brought us to and people are actually OK with this??? I am seriously boggled.
Less regulation in this space will spur more and more competition. Antitrust laws and media pressure + PR has been absolutely adequate. What am I missing?
So you are going to argue with statistical probability? It is our best determining factor. Have any better ideas?
If you don't believe in using probability to determine risk. How about you hire a pedophile to babysit your kids? How about throwing down your retirement on lotto tickets? ETC.
Do you think biased policing causes people to commit crimes? How about not committing crimes to begin with? How about not hanging with troublemakers? You think it is impossible for people to avoid being arrested and convicted of crimes because of "biased policing"? Please think harder.
OF course they are substantially more likely to be incorrectly classified. They are in a group with far more risk. (this is simple statistics and probability)
Interestingly, if this Algorithm was a human, they would be called a racist by all on the left. Instead, the best than can be managed is "unfair".
Objective truth hurts sometimes. Perhaps some apologies are owed to the so-called racists out there. Turns out they were just being as honest as a probability algorithm (shame on them).
If AI an robots ever police our society, leftists will have to tamper with their highly accurate, objective statistical analysis of who to pull over for questioning to save them from their racism. That is already what is going to happen to this algorithm.
Machines exposing emotion initiated dishonesty (until they are beaten into social justice submission and artificial guilt subroutines added to make things "fair").
But the irony is there is no burger-neutrality in the real world and none of the featured horrors has happened. There is a free market that has prevented all of the things they are espousing that a free market internet would cause (but somehow has not occurred in other markets). So it is like they are making an argument against net-neutrality.
Am I missing something here?
Perhaps they are just saying that if BK had zero competition, there would be price gouging somehow. But there IS competition in the ISP market for almost everyone. If ISP's ever start doing crazy things, it's just going to open up the door for more competitors too. In some places where there wasn't good competition. ISP's were told they couldn't do certain things because of antitrust laws. Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem.
I see people exclaiming their shame often of the lack of good internet service in the USA compared to Hong Kong ETC. I know the geographical challenges are often stated as a reason why. That is true in some cases, but what many people don't realize is that government has made it too difficult and expensive for competitors to come into the market. Bit ISP's have even lobbied for more laws and regulations in some cases because they can afford it and it will actually cost them less than having competition.
So government causes a problem with laws and regulations that it passes, then people want it to pass more laws to compensate for a hypothetical problem that the government in the first place. So in the end we have all this bureaucracy mucking everything up just to get us back to the equilibrium that a free market had brought us to and people are actually OK with this??? I am seriously boggled.
Less regulation in this space will spur more and more competition. Antitrust laws and media pressure + PR has been absolutely adequate. What am I missing?