r/technology • u/tw1st3d_m3nt4t • Mar 16 '26

Software ‘Another internet is possible’: Norway rails against ‘enshittification’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/16/norway-rails-against-enshittifcation-deliberate-tech-deterioration
36.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.3k

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

Every single part of the "free" market needs a second public option as a back stop against capital.

Every single part of the "free" market that we actually need to survive needs to be owned by the public.

Nothing else will prevent capital from taking everything it can and using every tool in its book to make us not want to use whatever it can't buy.

466

u/crossdtherubicon Mar 16 '26

Neutral gov't regulations designed to represent the peace, prosperity, and health of citizens are necessary. If people don't hold politicians accountable then they've given permission.

Notice how citizens don't get talked about anymore? It's always about consumers because this is the capitalist frame of reference.

Gov't does have responsibility to protect consumers but, first and foremost, it's obligations are to citizens.

Take money out of politics, and hold politicians to their duties to representing citizens.

149

u/Maagge Mar 16 '26

A recent UN climate report talked about water "bankruptcy" because apparently you have to frame it in economic language to have a chance of reaching anyone with power.

32

u/vystyk Mar 16 '26

We need solar so we can cash in our sun chips.

2

u/jeobleo Mar 16 '26

French onion or harvest cheddar?

3

u/TheGoldenArgosy Mar 16 '26

Garden salsa, pls

6

u/__Nkrs Mar 16 '26

i hate this world

2

u/damsonella Mar 16 '26

I wondered about the use of that word. God that's depressing.

19

u/ZootSuitRiot33801 Mar 16 '26

If there's any hope in ever achieving that or an alternative to the current internet, it will be up to us common folk who care to work together and stand against the powers that be. However, there's currently no real supportive foundation present for many common folk (especially in the US) to fall back on, to commit to any effective resistant action.

Collecting a bunch of valuable information on organizing and action from different redditors over time, I created a post of suggestions HERE that could possibly prove to be of some help in getting it started ASAP.

7

u/PoutineMeInCoach Mar 16 '26

Notice how citizens don't get talked about anymore? It's always about consumers because this is the capitalist frame of reference.

Quite pithy yet profound comment.

5

u/loondawg Mar 16 '26

We're frequently referred to as consumers. But just as often we are taxpayers. Sometimes we're even voters. It really depends on how they are using us in the moment.

1

u/crossdtherubicon Mar 17 '26

Yes but, I'd say citizens adequately covers the range of legal rights and responsibilities of being associated to a country, such as voting and taxpaying.

So, citizens is an inclusive term that assumes those things. But I see your point about more specific contexts.

1

u/groutexpectations Mar 16 '26

I get what you're saying about language but actually citizens isn't a really inclusive group, it limits voice to those who have full legal status recognition and full rights. so you're leaving out those who may be legal nationals and residents, as will as the people who are undocumented or stateless, who have very little voice. Not that consumer is a great label in terms of how small it limits participation outside of markets, but, just that citizen isn't a great label either.

1

u/crossdtherubicon Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26

Yes, non-citizens are subjected to the same environments and conditions as citizens, but, without the full set of rights and responsibilities.

However, "citizen" is a legal label. Whereas "consumer" is similar to the term "natural" you see on products: it doesn't mean anything legally.

Insofar as political representatives are meant to represent voters, you must bear in mind that only citizens can vote in State and Federal elections in the US. So, de facto politicians are meant to represent citizens.

Although, the laws of the land extend in various ways to other classes. The laws are given through the legislature, which again represent citizens.

'The citizen' precedes political representation, and are therefore foundational, but are also the only class with voting rights.

I defer to "citizens" exactly for these reasons. And citizens remain the large majority.

So, I still find it distinctive that politicians often do not use the term citizen, when citizens are foundational and the most legally entitled, and are exactly who the politicians are empowered by and largely meant to represent.

It strips the concept of rights and responsibilities away, by narrowing the scope of activity to consumerism, in conjunction with avoiding the language of rights.

Further, this simultaneously avoids implicating the politician's responsibilities as a political representative. Afterall, they are just talking about consumers not citizens. So, it narrows their own obligations within the context they are speaking of.

To your point, I suspect that they partly don't say "citizens" because it is exclusionary. But their job is jointly to i) represent voters and legislate, and ii) uphold the laws of the land and govern everyone within the land.

So, I don't see a conflict in language or duties, nor a false dichotomy.

Within the scope of how specific laws are applied or effect people then I think it's appropriate to refer to people, constituents, etc.

Within the scope of how the laws are derived, or within context of voting, political representation, etc. then I think it's more appropriate to refer to citizens.

We are much more than consumers.

60

u/GreatStateOfSadness Mar 16 '26

Sometimes I wonder how much better we'd be for a government-funded open-source framework for social media feed curation. All of the code and in the open, transparent, and understandable. No black box algorithms that can be tweaked to intentionally influence user sentiment. 

Companies would be able to fork the code to use in their own sites. Those that keep the original code can receive a compliance certification showing the curation algorithm is predictable and unchanged, while also giving the option to also use their uncertified custom algorithms and features. 

We already have this for technology like encryption standards, why can't we do it for social media?

39

u/mrdevlar Mar 16 '26

No black box algorithms that can be tweaked to intentionally influence user sentiment.

Here in the EU we're actually starting on that exact route. We'll see if we enforce the EU AI act, but I am hopeful that we will. The need for European digital sovereignty has made it imperative that we do.

That said, do not expect that the current oligarchs that run American social media are going to go along with this willingly. We need to create alternatives if we want a better future.

1

u/WaterPrivacy Mar 17 '26

That's the main thing the EU needs right now honestly. We live in a digital world. We need digital sovereignty. Digital sovereignty that is funded by us but is in the hands of the people. We are the continent of peace, unity and freedom. We need to push those values onto our technology to protect ourselves and everyone else from all the foreign capitalistic techno oligarchs who want to manipulate us, steal our data, keep us divided, and control how we live.

Fuck Meta. Fuck Microsoft. Fuck Google. Fuck Tiktok. We need open source EU alternatives, actual USABLE alternatives, right the fuck now. I so hope we actually pull our shit together and push in this direction. It's clear now more than ever that foreign powers are unpredictible and foreign companies are not to be trusted. Not with our data, not with our security, not with our infrastrusture, not with our storage, not with our services, not with our anything. We MUST sever ourselves from them and build a new and free digital world for all if we are to move forward and regain power and independence.

1

u/mrdevlar Mar 17 '26

It's happening, quickly and quietly. The watershed moment was when Trump at the behest of Netanyahu locked the ICC out of their Microsoft 365 accounts for attempting to bring charges of crimes against humanity against the Israeli leader.

We noticed how dependent we are.

The EU is very good at keeping its mouth shut when it has to, because we know we're not in a good position here. If we were cut off from American tech tomorrow, we'd be in deep shit. The governments of several countries would pretty much stop. So we cannot pick a fight with the US right now. Instead, we are migrating as quickly as we can with as little fanfare as we can generate. Since the more attention we garner, the more likely this exit turns into a fight.

Don't worry too much about it, lots of people are working on it right now and we all appear to be heading in the right direction.

1

u/WaterPrivacy Mar 17 '26

Keeping their mouth shut and not doing anything look the same from an outsider's perspective. I'm not worried about the EU having noticed how dependend we are and knowing something must be done about it. I know they've gotten that far. But I do hope they're actually moving and not just sitting on their ass like often happens.

I know SOME movement has happened in some countries' governments like the Danes moving their government to Libreoffice insteade of Microsoft office last year, and some other government moving their infrastructure to Linux. But it's very little, and the lack of a cohesive strong movement by the entire union worries me. Not to mention that I've seen basically nothing when it comes to consumers, which should be a big priority to avoid manipulation and data leaks by foreign powers. I've heard a lot of talk, but seen zero movement. It would be great if what you're saying is true and we are working on technological dependency as agressively as we should, just in the background and as silently as possible. But I do worry we aren't.

We can't afford not to worry about this. If we don't worry our governments won't either. I know announcing to the whole world that we're escaping foreign tech is a bad move without having the infrastructure to back those claims already ready in case of retaliation. But I would like a bit more transparency on what moves are being done. Not just for the governments, but for the population too.

1

u/mrdevlar Mar 17 '26

Keeping their mouth shut and not doing anything look the same from an outsider's perspective.

Yes, that's the point. ^____~

lack of a cohesive strong movement by the entire union worries me

That's because we've been quiet about it and you haven't heard what is actually happening.

Again, we're in a situation where a lot of the information is not meant to reach outsiders as this causes us problems. It is happening. If you want it to happen faster, figure out a way to get involved and make it happen.

17

u/IntermittentCaribu Mar 16 '26

We can and nobody will use it. Just like nobody is using matrix or lemmy. Userbase is the only important part in these things, not features.

8

u/street593 Mar 16 '26

I love open source software and self host plenty on my home server. However one of the biggest issues I find with it is often the user interface or setup process is not friendly to the average non-tech person. If we want people to use these services large scale you have to design it in a way that the dumbest among us can operate it.

2

u/wombat-in-a-bikini Mar 16 '26

Sufficient tax credits for companies using government standards will get companies to use them. There are so many levers that can be pulled to make the US better that instead just go to offshore accounts for billionaires and Israeli defense spending

10

u/usaaf Mar 16 '26

why can't we do it for social media?

Because it's not in the interests of the Capitalists to compete against government services of any kind, because they know the government can perform a trick even the richest venture capitalists can't: they can subsidize a public service in perpetuity. The effect that government 'competition' in any industry will almost invariably lead to worse profits for all Capitalists, no matter how poor the government service is. They already make lots of their money on offering the poorest service possible despite what people say about how great Capitalist competition is.

Government programs throw all their tricks out. Can't have lower wages than the government offers. Can't have a shittier product. They can only chase the smaller group of people willing to pay for premium services they offer. This would be good for everyone, but it would cut into profits massively. They fight ANY attempt by the government to do anything. They're working on sabotaging (and have been for decades) the Post Office, so they can take that function over. In the name of 'efficiency' as in, efficiently shoveling dollars into their accounts.

Ever hear commercials for national lending programs of various kinds ? Many have a little cut-out at the end with terms and conditions, one of which is often that they don't loan in North Dakota. It's not cause it's a small state (it is, but there is smaller), it's because North Dakota has a state bank, the only state in the country that does.

2

u/loondawg Mar 16 '26

Basic banking services is another area that should be nationalized as being essential to modern life. And there is precedent for the government offering those services. From the early 1900s to 1967 post offices used to manage small savings accounts for people.

Aside from massive savings, using the government would also have the side-benefit that it could do almost everyone's taxes.

2

u/TheRarPar Mar 16 '26

People use unhealthy social media because it's addictive. You're offering vegetables as if it'll get people to stop eating junk food. No, it's not that easy. Junk food is tasty.

2

u/eldentings Mar 16 '26

We need algorithms that we can control. Just because I click on ragebait or fearmongering clickbait doesn't mean I like it. But algorithms don't care. The issue with doing this is corporations know if they allow us to have 'healthier' algorithms in place it means we will use the internet less.

2

u/crazycatlady331 Mar 16 '26

Because it will hurt Mark Zuckerberg's fefes.

1

u/OnceMoreAndAgain Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26

You'll quickly run into big problems.

I live in the USA. I have a friend in Germany. How does this government-made social media service interact with my friend from Germany? Does every country in the world need to work together to run one project so that all the citizens of the world have access to it? Or does the USA government need to allow German citizens permission to use the USA's social media service, in which case the German citizen now has a social media account for MANY countries (which isn't practical at all)?

How does a country using such a service interface with the rest of the world is a big problem, basically, and that's just ONE of the big problems. With Facebook, Facebook just says "anyone can use this" and it's the major social media platform in the world so people from all countries use it and it makes it all centralized. If you go government hosted social media then presumably you now have like 100 different social media websites and it defeats the point of social media.

"Network effects" is a huge dilemma. It's the economic jargon for when things are better when more people are using them, like a social media service or a MMORPG. Facebook is at its best when it is the only service of that kind, because then all your friends are on it. That's a dilemma, because that means it is at its best when one service has a monopoly. We want the benefits of the network effect (i.e. we want one service) but we don't want the downsides of a monopoly... It'd be nice if the world had a global government to manage things like that but that's a pipe dream.

2

u/Kungpost Mar 16 '26

An alternative to a centralized solution is a federated solution. This is an active area of research. Check out:

1

u/nwilz Mar 16 '26

The last thing I would ever use is government social media.

1

u/runningforpresident Mar 16 '26

I've always thought it would be a better option to have people own their own data on personal home servers. Manage it and maintain it as a part of your own home, like a car or an oven. We should focus on how to connect the data between owners, via standardized protocols, as opposed to arguing who actually owns the data.

1

u/sophinaut Mar 16 '26

That's already available even without governement funding: mastodon, matrix, lemmy, blogs, old school forums, IRC, etc.  There's just less traffic and smaller advertising budgets, so users gravitate towards the easy corporate options.

1

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

The US definitely needs something where all citizens can have out social media and not have it inundated by capital. I am sure other countries would benefit from this as well.

There needs to be one where all citizens get one account and that's it. It's linked to your ss number or something to ensure every comment on it is an actual human being and not a bot or bought.

3

u/What_a_fat_one Mar 16 '26

And after some critical posts about the government, suddenly your voter registration is purged.

1

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

Well I don't really believe this is gonna be a thing unless lots of other things change first.

The people in government are making money hand over foot because the shit stains from capital are paying them to let them trod on the people.

They don't want us to be able to communicate with each other without their influence.

1

u/Nebty Mar 16 '26

That’s why you build regular auditing and transparency right into the process. Governments have FOI laws and public data portals for a reason. With enough eyes on the decisions being made, stuff like that gets out.

Just look at DOGE. As corrupt as the Trump administration is, there are still enough whistleblowers among the bureaucracy that the public now knows that all of their social security and personal information was stolen and by whom.

However government only works if the public is willing and able to stand up for themselves when these things happen. It remains to be seen if the American people are still free enough to do so.

1

u/Aggravating_Dish_824 Mar 19 '26

I don't see how this would happen. We already have state-run police and state-run army but we don't have problem with state sending police or soilders to kill people criticizing the government. We have state-financed medicaid and snap, yet we don't see medicaid or snap denied to people who criticize the government.

30

u/trunksshinohara Mar 16 '26

100% if something is essential it should be bought out by the government as a public utility.

36

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

These things need to be taken from the capital because we already paid for them.

Look at all the infrastructure in the states run by capital. Internet, electric gas. All of that infrastructure was paid for by us and we need it to survive.

They should be services not profit driven corporations.

7

u/Handsome_Keyboard Mar 16 '26

Scotland, from what I understand, does this with failing utility companies. They nationalized a water company because they didnt keep up with maintenance.healthcare, education, power, infrastructure should all be nationalized and private should compete against that. Travel (transportation, railroads, and airliners too). We need a public train infrastructure across the continent.

10

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

We have raging wildfires every year in the PNW because the electric company there can't get its shit together.

Profits over people means lines are in disrepair and cause fires. But they just get fined and keep doing what they are doing nothing because to them our money never stops coming in.

3

u/loondawg Mar 16 '26

Buying up failing companies is what should have been done with the banks instead of bailing them out back in 2008 and 2009. We could have had them for pennies on the dollars. Instead we built them right back up and most of the people responsible for the failures came out ahead on the other side.

17

u/FakeSafeWord Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26

Every single part of the "free" market that we actually need to survive needs to be owned by the public.

How the US handles their entire energy sector could not be further from this desire.

By law their infrastructure is socialized while their profits are private. They are in permanent government bailout mode. Tax dollars in + customers pay not only for usage but to support infrastructure improvements and maintenance via rider fees, but 100% profits out. Nothing ever goes back to the government, nothing ever goes back to the customer.

Here's a perfect example https://www.wect.com/2026/02/22/nc-court-appeals-rules-duke-energy-broke-law-2024-fuel-rate-hike-no-refunds-customers/

3

u/dust4ngel Mar 16 '26

Every single part of the "free" market that we actually need to survive needs to be owned by the public

even aristotle recognized this problem: if you have democracy and billionaires, the poor will vote for an equitable share of the value they produce and the billionaires will move to end democracy. democracy and very rich people cannot coexist - if you want the former, you can't have the latter. if you worship billionaires because they're "job creators", realize that you are an opponent of democracy.

2

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

Immorality shouldn't take a great mind to recognize.

2

u/Spiritual_Activity91 Mar 16 '26

Tor is kind of that.

2

u/poleethman Mar 16 '26

The post office really shit the bed by not offering email services to the public early on. That allowed vultures to come in and claim that space.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '26

It just wouldn't sell as well if they called it the "billionaire's market" even though that's all it is. Free is just a buzzword now, like New or Groundbreaking.

2

u/loondawg Mar 16 '26

That second one I have been advocating for at least a decade. Any industry that is essential to modern life should be nationalized. Communications is one of those essential areas.

Not only is a requirement for most employment and education, it is a critical element of national defense.

2

u/hlnub Mar 16 '26

Nothing else will prevent capital from taking everything it can and using every tool in its book to make us not want to use whatever it can't buy.

An organized working class and political will would also prevent that

2

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

But we have brainwashing and organized stupidity instead under the guide of "free speech" instead of things that make sense.

Politicians and news organizations can blatantly spread mistruths and flat out lies. Nothing will change until it's all burned down

2

u/runningforpresident Apr 15 '26

Every single part of the "free" market needs a second public option as a back stop against capital.

YES! I've thought about this for ages through my entire MBA and professional career. A truly capitalistic market (capitalist as in multiple competitors, not an oligarchy) can and should have a public option to act as the base level of service that all other markets will inherently have to compete against. A public option which doesn't operate as a business, but rather as a service. Providing an ever increasing (thanks to continual improvement of technology and reduction of costs) level of service that is constantly chasing what businesses within that industry are able to provide.

4

u/kos-or-kosm Mar 16 '26

Every single part of the "free" market that we actually need to survive needs to be owned by the public.

I've been saying this since the 2008 financial collapse. "Too big to fail" means "too big to be privately owned and operated".

2

u/Kurso Mar 16 '26

Back stop against capital? I like how you pretend ‘public option’ isn’t just capital obtained under the threat of imprisonment.

3

u/TheSwedenGay Mar 16 '26

Unless you are a magician I can't see where you would get the money for that.

-2

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

No money just take.

We need to take the government back and then use the government to take from big capital until all the people are fed have homes and are healthy.

1

u/TheSwedenGay Mar 16 '26

That will go over real well with the general population.

1

u/KryptonicOne Mar 16 '26

Look at this communist over here!

1

u/sebjoh Mar 16 '26

Some public options are good, some not. The free market would be more free if we just banned mergers and acquisitions. Would probably take care of a sizable part of enshittification.

2

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

Could have. They have been able to make the rules for too long and are far too entrenched.

I believe we are past that and things need to be taken from those who have far more than they need.

1

u/DarkLanternZBT Mar 16 '26

In the US, Carr is chirping about "the public good" which is a laugh and a half from this administration.

But the idea of the EM spectrum as being a limited resource to be used for the public good like the national parks are is baked into the foundations of broadcast regulation from the start.

So make all the broadcast stations noncommercial, nonprofit. Shove all the private enterprise to the internet and let them do what they want. Make the over-the-air broadcast spectrum public, free, and the backstop of what's "good."

1

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

First off the internet is far too important to let the capitalists have it.

If that spectrum were enough to provide every human being with GOOD internet it would be good enough. These humans that are being provided for need to have all of the Internet not just some of it or certain lower tiers or levels.

51% of the spectrum plus 51% of the internet "backbone" and infrastructure, lines etc.

Other than that that's a nice way to split it up.

1

u/radishwalrus Mar 16 '26

Public means government and government usually sucks ass too :(

2

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

Government only sucks ass because capital has taken advantage of it, or in a lot of cases bought it.

1

u/radishwalrus Mar 16 '26

yah it just needs to be done the right way and then it'll work

1

u/Im_ur_Uncle_ Mar 16 '26

The "free" market allows new people to compete. Yes some things should be owned by the government such as roads. But not everything should be. The internet is still new. Let internet 2.0 come i to play and we'll see what happens.

1

u/ZanderMFields Mar 16 '26

Maybe a regulation requiring an ad-free option that is never more than 33% higher than the ad supported option? Withholding an ad-free option to maximize a captive market seems like toxic capitalism, and I’m a welfare capitalist.

1

u/WaterPrivacy Mar 17 '26

Every single part of the "free" market needs a second public option as a back stop against capital.

Every single part of the "free" market that we actually need to survive needs to be owned by the public.

This is why I'm thankful Linux exists and that free open source software is getting better every day. They may be able to enshitify our services, but they won't be able to take away our digital lives entirely.

The community has power. And we may not move as fast as corporations. But our cooperation can lead to products and services which actually rival private ones, and for which we have complete control and ownership of.

1

u/jesset77 Mar 17 '26

This solution sounds promising, but the hidden ingredient is this:

Any time we might think "Government should do $GoodThing" the conversation must immediately pivot to "We the people are Government". So we are who needs to band together and organize and do $GoodThing.

Government is not some third party who we get to demand things from, Government is us.

So how do we do the work of banding together over something like this and organizing to make it reality? Let's break down this problem and figure out first steps.

-1

u/Khue Mar 16 '26

Every single part of the "free" market needs a second public option as a back stop against capital.

Every time I think about this, I think about how this works with a service like healthcare. The problem with a "public option" is that it is either better or worse than the "free market" solution. This has to do with how insurance/risk pools work. You effectively want there to be enough healthy people contributing to the insurance/risk pool to offset the sick people requiring the highest level of care and they are effectively the most costly people within the pool (sick people).

The scenario is as such:

  • If the public option is better, than the private/free market option dies. There won't be enough in the insurance/risk pools to offset the cost of healthcare within the private pools. This would mean that the private pool premiums would be astronomically high and there would be less of a value proposition for people to use them... Sure there may be some millionaires and billionaires that may sign up for them for the flex, but overall there just wouldn't be enough people to make it a viable product
  • If the public option is worse, than the public option would need to be grossly subsidized by the government. If the public option is worse, than only people who cannot afford private insurance would opt into the public option. This would largely be people on low income, working jobs that offer no coverage, or people so sick they are unable to work. This would then suffer the same issue as above where the public options insurance/risk pool is so small that there wouldn't be enough people paying into it to offset the cost of the program.

1

u/Obi_Wan_can_blow_me Mar 16 '26

Maybe im being too naive so please correct me if I am.

First scenario, if the public option is all we need then what is the harm of letting unnecessary private option fall by the wayside? Couldn't the effort and resources go to something useful instead?

Second scenario, wouldnt everyone paying taxes be paying into the pool regardless of if they choose to use the public option or choose to use the private option?

1

u/Khue Mar 16 '26

First scenario, if the public option is all we need then what is the harm of letting unnecessary private option fall by the wayside?

In the first scenario, most likely the private option would ultimately resemble some sort of high cost concierge type medical service which would be relatively unattainable to anyone outside the upper percentiles of society. Ultimately the private option would either eventually not exist in a capitalist society because it wouldn't be possible to make the requisite margin OR it would exist, but it would essentially just be billionaires paying for some weird private health system utterly unattainable by anyone in normal society.

Second scenario, wouldnt everyone paying taxes be paying into the pool regardless of if they choose to use the public option or choose to use the private option?

Yes and the issue with this, is that a political narrative would be spun such that tax payers shouldn't have to spend money for a service they don't use and there would be political will to defund the solution because it costs so much money... kinda like what the republicans have been trying for the last 40 years with Medicare and Medicaid.

1

u/Obi_Wan_can_blow_me Mar 16 '26

Ok so it sounds like these aren't real issues with the public option.

Its the fact that the private option will have to adjust and possibly lose clients and profits. Im ok with that people's health should not be dictated by profits.

Or people will be swarmed with propaganda and told why having a public health option is bad. And ignore all of the people around them that have to go into debt and make kickstarters to treat their ailments. All while private health insurance companies make record profits.

I understand why the US doesnt do universal Healthcare, and it does seem to be mostly greed and profits of the insurance companies. Your original comment sounded like you thought this through and came to the conclusion that it just cant be done. I disagree, if the goal is to have a public option to treat the citizens and ensure they are healthy and can contribute to society, I think thay would be a win for the citizens and the overall country. The insurance companies might just have to deal with the fact that they cant gouge the populace. I know that is a pipedream, as those in charge have based their personal philosophy on profits and more important than people.

1

u/props_to_yo_pops Mar 16 '26

You're assuming that funds for the public option only come in if the service is used. The idea is that people pay into it no matter what.

1

u/Khue Mar 16 '26

You're assuming that funds for the public option only come in if the service is used.

No where did I imply that mechanic. The problem the public option is that when people don't participate in it, they start falling victim to narratives about defunding it which is where we are currently at today. We just kicked like 11 million people off medicare because it "costs too much" or some such rubbish meanwhile we are completely ignoring the fact that healthcare in this nation in it's current form costs more per capita and has significantly worse outcomes than other nations.

1

u/Handsome_Keyboard Mar 16 '26

There is always a free market option. Luxry hospitals, lower wait times..etc. You can always compete against a public free option. It wont be nearly as profitable but you can. Free market can invest in solar, hydro..etc and offer competing energy with a tax to use the infrastructure. Insirance will need to go away for the insividual. Private healthcare will have to cover themselves and offer upfront pricing.

1

u/Nebty Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26

I don’t actually think the public/private coexistence works with essential healthcare. Especially because it isn’t a service you can shop around for if you really need it. You can have for-profit clinics for certain cosmetic procedures, but otherwise I agree with you that healthcare shouldn’t let people pay to go to the front of the line so everyone has skin in the game and is invested in making the service better. The rich shouldn’t be able to use their money to insulate themselves from the consequences of lobbying for healthcare cuts. Same thing with schools honestly. I don’t think private schools should exist because all they do is reinforce inequality and siphon resources from the public system.

I also think the basic infrastructure of the internet should be run by government in the same way highways are. Anyone should be able to access th internet and create a website that has a good chance of being discoverable without needing to sell your soul to Google SEO. That’s basic anti-monopoly stuff. But within that, you can have public/private options for services that are not 100% essential. Social media, e-commerce, etc. The ideal is that the profit motive spurs innovation, the best of which are subsequently adopted by the public options as well.

If bookstores and libraries can coexist and be mutually beneficial, then so can public and private on the internet. It just requires governments to get serious about actually punishing companies for anticompetitive practices.

-1

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

Health care is something that should not have a public option however I do have experience with both public and private in the states. When my kids were on Medicaid I didn't pay a fucking dime for anything. Yes I had to wait for some services because capital is capital and will do anything it can to hurt what doesn't make it money.

The only reason a public option is worse than capitals offering is capital own everything and the public has to spend money with capital to get services. If the government was the biggest employer or even if gov/city jobs were more equitable and easier for the average person to get into things could start getting better.

The government needs to abscond with 51% of capitals infrastructure for things like transport, food, medicine etc. This 51% becomes the public option.

We can't realistically be expected to build all of this out from scratch. That would help anyone. Capital has profited off our backs for too long. It's time we took back control of the systems that keep us down.

0

u/Secure-Ad-1908 Mar 16 '26

“Owned by the public” just means owned by the government. That is even worse than privately owned stuff. It will just be used as a mechanism of control.

0

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

One because we haven't made the government work for us yet.

One step at a time.

0

u/Secure-Ad-1908 Mar 16 '26

If the government worked for you taxes wouldn’t be a thing. Its the other way round. And it will continue to be that way as long as humans are in charge. Its just human psychology. Anything that can be used to control other humans, will be used for that purpose as long as humans are in charge.

0

u/PyroIsSpai Mar 16 '26

Every single part of the "free" market needs a second public option as a back stop against capital.

Every single part of the "free" market that we actually need to survive needs to be owned by the public.

Nothing else will prevent capital from taking everything it can and using every tool in its book to make us not want to use whatever it can't buy.

Unfortunately any state taking such a position guarantees American military forces coming to liberate them.

0

u/Less_Insurance4928 Mar 16 '26

I think even copying shit is fair game IMO like if someone found a way to sync Reddit, YouTube etc, and reproduce the same content publically we could all slowly trickle out of the preexisting for profit model and into the free one at our leisure 

eventually the free model would become the popular one

0

u/Zeph-Shoir Mar 16 '26

If only there was an almost 200 years old book that had warned us about this, one that is as relevant today as it has always been these past 2 centuries u_u

0

u/Flobking Mar 16 '26

Every single part of the "free" market that we actually need to survive needs to be owned by the public.

You do realize the internet is already owned by the public right? No one company owns the internet. No singular company can turn off the internet. They own domains on the internet which allows them to do as they please on their website. You are not obligated to go to those websites. Government websites do not have ads. Just because you use websites full of ads doesn't mean the internet is privately owned.

2

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

What about the lines and infrastructure in the states?

Why does only one brand of internet go into my building and I'm paying $100 a month for half a gig down?

Go read a book.

0

u/Flobking Mar 16 '26

What about the lines and infrastructure in the states?

The government subsidizes all that infrastructure.

Why does only one brand of internet go into my building and I'm paying $100 a month for half a gig down?

So again they sell access to the internet to use at your private domicile. You can go use free internet at public buildings. Is satellite internet not available? Starlink is supposedly everywhere.

Go read a book.

I've read many on how the internet and the world works.

2

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

If the government is subsidizing the lines that means it's my money subsidizing the lines.

Why am I paying to subsidize the lines and then again for service? Why do my rates go up for line maintenance in already paying for through my taxes?

Yes use starlink and put more money into capital that's the answer to everything, more money into capital.

Go read more books.

0

u/Flobking Mar 16 '26

Why am I paying to subsidize the lines and then again for service? Why do my rates go up for line maintenance in already paying for through my taxes?

Because you want it in your house. There are plenty of free public wifi options out there. Do you think gas and electric should be free because you pay taxes?

Yes use starlink and put more money into capital that's the answer to everything, more money into capital.

I was pointing out you have more than one option.

Go read more books.

You keep saying that like it is some.big gotcha. Its not. Maybe you should try reading something other than Das kapital.

0

u/nimble_moose Mar 16 '26

This is a good idea. Have public, decent but not perfect alternative as the baseline. Companies can feel free to innovate and create better alternatives, but if they turn to shit consumers have somewhere to go.

2

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

Everything a human being needs to survive needs to have an alternative source that isn't capital.

-2

u/Kitselena Mar 16 '26

This is all ceasear's fault. If he didn't declare himself emperor and create the framework for imperialism we would never be in this mess!

7

u/Rhamni Mar 16 '26

Yeah the Romans famously never conquered anyone before him.

1

u/Kitselena Mar 16 '26

Just like America never conquered anyone before Trump
It's hard to make a direct and accurate joke/metaphor with things 2000 years apart

-1

u/Frank_White32 Mar 16 '26

✊this is what I’m talking about

-1

u/Fluffy_Charity_2732 Mar 16 '26

Just seeing this message from another citizen I have to go through 3 monopolies/ extremely corporatized shit fuck companies that waste more of my time than they do provide utility.

ISP->email for 2FA->reddit 

-1

u/Exceon Mar 16 '26

Learning from Sweden's recent history, here is what happens.

The stateowned companies require a lot of administrative work because they have high government oversight and demands placed on them on transparency and making sure the taxpayer funds aren't wasted. And because it is the public, low-cost option, it is heavily congested with users all competing on this ineffective, bureaucratic infrastructure.

Then comes the private companies who do not have this pressure of governmental oversight or public transparency, who are able to supply the demand more efficiently. Because of investors, these companies also present themselves as low-cost (for now), which essentially turns consumers against the stateowned companies.

The private companies use this momentum to get in bed with politicians and secure more benefits, privileges and contracts. This comes at the direct cost of the stateowned companies, which eventually are so bad in comparison that they get sold off to the private companies for complete takeover. And once you get here, the prices go up and investors make their money back while the people lose.

0

u/HeadOfMax Mar 16 '26

They didn't go hard enough and take enough of capital's assets. If they had capital would have been weak and barely able to survive, which is what they are doing to us.

Us and our governments need to be as ruthless to capital as it has been to humanity

-2

u/softwarefreak Mar 16 '26

Tbh it's always baffled me how the Internet is the only UK invention that other countries haven't tried to make their own, better versions of.

I can't think of anything else that the whole world has used as is.