No to political email spam! No to political phone spam! It's my email and phone. I should be able to decide who gets through and block anything else. Besides, no email or phone call is going to change my mind about who I'm voting for or against.
I forgot to add that they shouldn't destroy the chargers. They should change them to accept payment and treat them as a revenue source.
I can sort of see their point. Why is the government paying to charge electric vehicles? I know it isn't expensive but it's just another government give away for a small portion of the population. Why should I, a tax payer, supplement the income of other tax payers? If you look at the price of electric cars, you have to be a taxpayer in order to afford an electric car. Just reduce taxes and be done with it. Everyone benefits.
I agree that derivative works are sometimes better but credit should always be given to the original work.
In this case, people will be paying for the service. If the costs aren't subsidized by the government then it isn't socialism. Based on what I've read about other communities that have done this, the costs and services can be better without the community using tax money.
The ISPs calling government provided internet socialism makes it sound like they endorse capitalism. Having the government protect their monopoly certainly isn't capitalism.
This is a step in the right direction. Next, they need to open the market to true competition. If they did that, they wouldn't have to get into the ISP business. In my case, I have the option of AT&T or Comcast. That's it. That isn't enough to create competition.
Based on your post, you must think Barnes and Noble can be held responsible for something published in Time magazine simply because Barnes and Noble sells Time. It's the same paradigm. Facebook isn't the publisher. They are the distributor.
The second problem is who gets to determine what is false. An ad may say that Warren is the best candidate for President. I say that is false. Should Facebook be required to remove the ad? If not, why not? A large percent of the population agrees with me.
No, but the problem is that the ISP's are allowed to lie about their coverage and have their monopolies protected by the government. Most industrialized countries have better coverage at lower costs. If the government wasn't protecting the ISP's, capitalism would force the ISP's to provide better coverage at better prices.
If it is a crime, it is a crime. It doesn't matter who else did the same or similar things. If you want to point out hypocrisy, look at the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server. Comey spent almost 15 minutes listing her crimes but said that she should be charged because she didn't mean to do it. It that is the case, everyone in jail for involuntary manslaughter should be released. The charge itself says that they didn't mean to do it. If I text while driving and kill someone, I guess I shouldn't charged either. I wouldn't have meant to kill the person.
How many times did Obama say that the Constitution prevented him from doing something and then do the prohibited action a few months later? Our federal government hasn't worried about the Constitution is decades. It it had, the federal government would be considerably smaller than it is today.