Gun insurance... Should be a thing... It's the single most compelling thing I have heard someone say about guns and wonder why it wasn't a thing... Insurance companies don't fuck around.
If guns had a function besides murder, that would be a bad argument, but they don't. Defense is just the threat of murder.
Shooting at the range for fun, I suppose, but if people are actually serious about that they'd want to store their guns there because there's no need for them anywhere else.
I am sure BMW's TOS has a sentence in there somewhere that they are your daddy once you sign up and this is binding forever. Looks like that means they are a service provider for life.
Also.. isn't a subscription for heated seats means they provide a live service that we need to pay regularly to maintain?
That is a better analogy, but critically, phone lines are regulated as Title II common carrier utilities, but internet connections are not.
Given how Trump's previous FCC pick, Ajit Pai, killed net neutrality, I expect Trump's new pick, and his SCOTUS to pick whatever benefits Comcast the most.
Not blaming the ISP would give the net neutrality case too much credence. I think Comcast would rather be "required" to do deep packet inspection on all their users to look for "illegal behavior" (among other things).
BMW provides the service of being able to buy and use their product. The service of a gun manufacturer is providing you with a murder weapon (yes, it also can be used for sports). The service of a grocery store is providing you with a place to buy your groceries (and in the US also guns). Why is it different? Whether the product is a connection to the internet or a car, both companies provide a service for money.
I could see the Supreme Court rejecting this based on that idea... If you blame the manufacturer, that's going to open up all manner of gun lawsuits, ammunition lawsuits, etc.
What this actually is: They have Verizon bribing them and the MPAA bribing them. They don't want to shrug either one of them off, so they'll let the United States citizens make the choice, you know, in good faith in all, so the next 20 years of bullahit they pull that's against public opinion, They can just point back to this one time
The blame will just trickle down, so what's it gonna be, us or them?
Ai isn't a thing we had in the Napster days. They could jot down all of Mullvad and Nord's ips and start sniffing. Once gigabytes turn into terabytes within a day, they've got a few suspects.
Yeah what the hell are they asking for views for. Their job is to say, this literature does or does not say this can or can't happen.
Then the legislative branch should be writing what they believe the people they represent want. In reality they will bend it to fit what their lobbyists want, by why on earth is the judicial branch inquiring as to what the people want?
It's like an admission of guilt to not judging without bias. Thereby all of their judgements would be invalid....
just in case Ars Technica has to remove it someday (perhaps for licensing reaasons? 😭), i am pasting a screenshot here of the excellent image illustrating this article:
Maybe content holders should be responsible for enshittifying their services.. I shouldn't have to go to 4 different apps to watch what I want, or try to figure out which service carries an obscure title I like