I found this comparison matrix[1] which provided me the info I needed to identify a few services to compare. I'm really just looking to keep my ISP from snooping on my traffic, so my criteria are pretty limited and I just wanted something quick. I don't plan to watch Netflix with it for example, which might have pushed me to a service that would allow me to select specific servers for traffic egress.
I have no complaints
>I don't plan to watch Netflix with it for example, which might have pushed me to a service that would allow me to select specific servers for traffic egress.
PIA has servers in many different countries that you could switch to, does that not that fulfill this?
Its a "has power" vs "doesn't have power" split.
The Democrats are just as culpable as Republicans. Don't give either party a pass.
The vote count sure looked like it to me.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202#admin_p...
Yea 215 (Republican 215, Democrat 0) Nay 205 (Republican 15, Democrat 190)
On actually contentious issues, like CISPA and the like, the votes split almost exactly down donation lines as opposed to party lines.
Regardless, even if the split is supposedly true what do you think is the real problem? The current republican gang or the influence and power the rich wield? Even if you replaced every single politician you hated with the wave of a magic wand the powers that be would still find ways to influence the new group.
We should tackle the systemic problems first as a whole nation, then hopefully the issue of removing those that wish themselves our master will be much easier.
[0] https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2016...
Congress is completely corrupt. They don't write legislation, k-street does. They don't read legislation they pass. When confronted, they waffle about benefits to corporations being beneficial to their constituents. Almost all are in violation of their oath.
After much deliberation I think reprent.us has it right, the only way for us to take of this issue is for a new rallying cry to elect third-parties and indepedents to take away the majorities of both parties. (which is also how we get an independent or third-party elected president by taking the 270 votes away from both parties and the vote goes to the house).
We need to stop letting people push the farcicle duverger's law as if it's irrefutable fact, because it's not.
But combined, their views represent only a narrow slice of the political spectrum.
Both parties have their own flavor of expanding the powers of the government, while no one in office is advocating reduction of government power.
Sure, the republicans occasionally give lip service to the idea, but they're all the same as the dems.
I guess I'm a bit fed up being told "pick a party that represents you" and finding absolutely zero options who don't make me feel dirty or stupid.
I maintain that both parties are the same, neither is capable of delivering real change. (A perfect example is the last US presidential election. Trump and Hillary? FFS.)
Not everyone is interested in across-the-board reduction of government power. I understand it appears to be your view, but you need to be careful to treat that as another political position, not as a global constant.
>I maintain that both parties are the same, neither is capable of delivering real change
I think it's a naive fallacy to have the base goal being some nebulous thing called "real change". When things like Obamacare and gay marriage and raising the minimum wage and protecting the environment, like Obama did and Clinton would have worked for, can't be called "real change" because they aren't the perfect solution some liberals/libertarians would want belies a privilege in not being a member of the classes that these things really affect, which coincidentally are not classes often represented well in the tech industry or on tech boards like this one.
I am too quick to elevate my political _opinion_ to that of fact, and in doing so, commit the exact same mistake that drives me bonkers when other people do it.
Also, my own use of "real change", as soon as I read your comment, made me hang my head in shame. "Real Change(TM)" is just a stand in for "something that I think should be done, and until it's done, nothing else matters!"
It's related, I suspect, to the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
So, you're right. I worded that entire comment poorly.
This is one of the reasons I enjoy dipping into the HN comments now and again - I sometimes get really high-value feedback like this.
So thank you, /u/mejari, for taking the time to comment what you did. It's a good gift. :)
It kinda depends on what you mean by "across-the-board reduction of government power." I do believe that everyone is interested in peace. And justice. And creativity. And hope. And being able to relax and do what they want.
And even if government isn't in opposition to these things in every case, empire certainly is. And people recognize that.
So yes, deprecating the American Empire is something that enjoys very broad support; certain aspects enjoy consensus.
While 'No Empire' seems to be a Good Thing, in general, if the question was instead, "Which country should lead the global Empire if not America?" I wonder what the survey results would be.
That is (by way of the Median Voter Theorem) a consequence of the two-party system, which is (by way of Duverger's law) a consequence of winner-takes-all or first-past-the-post (and not proportional) voting, I'd say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system
A Democratic president put these protections in place.
He expanded the powers of the NSA because he could, or had to, or whatever. I struggle to imagine that he then turned around and used the FCC to push meaningful reform along for his citizens.
I think the burden of proof is on you to show that his track record with government spying should be ignored when thinking about his track record with FCC/consumer protections.
It is in their interests for us to think there is meaningful difference between them, and I'm confident that many dems and republicans do earnestly believe there are differences between them and the other party.
But the differences are _so small_.
If one party wants to pass legislation that does X, and the other wants legislation that does Y, there is _no one_ advocating for all the myriad unspoken options.
My wife used to be a kindergarten teacher. One of her classroom management strategies was to try to give her students options. She'd say "would you like to do X or Y right now?"
Of course, she only gave options that she already approved.
So, for the "powers that be", the real power is deciding what bills go up for a vote. What happens in the actual vote is trivial compared to the power that comes with killing a bill before it hits the floor, or passing other legislation in omnibus spending bills.
I maintain that they work together to screw us all over for their own benefit, and to keep the corporate spigot flowing.
Stop this BS. The democratic party has done pretty much similar bad things that violate our privacy. Are you just good at selectively ignoring things? This is really the fact that every US govt is not for personal data privacy. You have to just accept it (if you are an american).
It's also a good concrete issue to use in understanding that while arguments like "Democrats Do Bad Stuff Too So IDK Apathy" may be persuasive to some people in justifying not voting, it's ultimately not true. If this issue matters to you, there was a ballot box solution to preventing it. Not enough people used it.
If this recent attack on privacy is something both sides support (as you seem to claim), why did the Obama administration set out those rules? And why did the Democrats in Congress not vote for this repeal?
Those rules were a proactive measure
Don't bring that weak Whataboutism here.
If when given the option you don't use services that keep your data private, why is this a big deal to you when yet another service you use sells your data? If you want privacy you either need to shop for services that provider it, or like this article states, take measure to ensure some level of privacy.
It's disgusting, and I'm disgusted (_yet again_) by the mercenary Republican Party. They are declaring war on me and my loved ones and the vast majority of our fellow Americans and anyone else unfortunate to have to use an internet connection in the US (and live under the rest of their insane policies).
For the record, I signed up for a personal VPN two weeks ago because this anti-consumer outcome was assured with the current party in power in the US.