Spam phone calls



  • @masonwheeler except tmobile does unlimited for (all?) Their plans, they just drop you to 3g speed when you exceed your limit.

    *Plans may have changed in the last years, previously i was on included 1 gb data at 4glte and after unlimited at 3g for free.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @anotherusername said in Spam phone calls:

    That's not how it's being offered though. Anything that's detected as video gets optimized. Unless you decide to opt out; then nothing is. Or the site can opt out; then nobody gets optimized videos from their site. So far no sites have opted out, though.

    Uhh... where are you getting this from? Because that is exactly how Binge-On works.

    @Matches said in Spam phone calls:

    @masonwheeler except tmobile does unlimited for (all?) Their plans, they just drop you to 3g speed when you exceed your limit.



  • @masonwheeler no, really, there was no data cap. I used 1gb at 4g lte, and another 300gb on 3g. It was free.

    The uncapped data had a specified limit, your usage did not.



  • @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    @anotherusername said in Spam phone calls:

    That's not how it's being offered though. Anything that's detected as video gets optimized. Unless you decide to opt out; then nothing is. Or the site can opt out; then nobody gets optimized videos from their site. So far no sites have opted out, though.

    Uhh... where are you getting this from? Because that is exactly how Binge-On works.

    From their website.

    Detectable video typically streams at DVD quality (480p+) with Binge On unless video provider opts-out

    it provides a great DVD-quality experience (typically 480p or better) for all detectable video while using a fraction of the data, unless a provider chooses to opt-out of the program

    If providers meet technical requirements, we’ll investigate the feasibility of adding them. No one pays to join and no money is exchanged.

    Also, for the technical side:

    http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-March-2016.pdf


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    That's a scam and a net neutrality violation.

    Hurray for bullshit regulation that prevents innovation and competition!


  • area_can

    @anotherusername said in Spam phone calls:

    T-Mobile allows unlimited free streaming from sites like YT now. It might be cheaper to get a plan that's limited if all the YT streaming doesn't count toward its limit.

    Does anyone know if someone's developed any sort of HTTP via YouTube tunnel? I know someone used base64 encoded chat messages and a bot to tunnel all their traffic over Facebook, maybe we could do something similar...


  • Notification Spam Recipient

    @bb36e said in Spam phone calls:

    I know someone used base64 encoded chat messages and a bot to tunnel all their traffic over Facebook, maybe we could do something similar...

    That sounds awesome!

    We should do something like that with Texts for those that have unlimited...



  • I don't remembered if it was here that I read that net neutrality is fighting the symptoms, and the real problem is the lack of competition on providers. I agree with that, providers are too abusive because they lack competition. But neutrality helps if we can have it.


  • area_can

    @Tsaukpaetra said in Spam phone calls:

    We should do something like that with Texts for those that have unlimited...

    Someone actually tried that: http://www.androidauthority.com/cosmos-browser-play-store-531334/

    Cosmos was live for a monthish, but since the app was free and the platform relied on Twilio for sending texts they eventually had to shut down. Also it was incredibly slow.

    That said, maybe you could do something better involving MMS and hosting it yourself. But you still need a way to send texts to your phone from your server.


  • Notification Spam Recipient

    @bb36e said in Spam phone calls:

    send texts to your phone from your server.

    Why not use another phone connected via Wifi to act as the server? ;)



  • @bb36e said in Spam phone calls:

    @Tsaukpaetra said in Spam phone calls:

    We should do something like that with Texts for those that have unlimited...

    Someone actually tried that: http://www.androidauthority.com/cosmos-browser-play-store-531334/

    Cosmos was live for a monthish, but since the app was free and the platform relied on Twilio for sending texts they eventually had to shut down. Also it was incredibly slow.

    That said, maybe you could do something better involving MMS and hosting it yourself. But you still need a way to send texts to your phone from your server.

    I remember using browse by email using Juno back in the day.



  • @Onyx said in Spam phone calls:

    I'm not sure where you're from, but spoofing a number like that should probably not be something you're allowed to do by your provider. So whatever provider they are using probably doesn't check their alleged caller ID (or P-Asserted-Identity, if they are on SIP) properly.

    For a record, I remember that like 5 years ago, some bad people discovered that they can use some device to change the caller ID displayed to others. (The programme shown on TV show demo-ed calling with number displayed as 999 - the emergency phone number here) It took a few months for the mobile service providers to develop ways to block those spoofed calls.

    So maybe complaining to the phone company will work. If it does not, make sure it appears in the local news to pressure them fix it.


  • :belt_onion:

    @cheong said in Spam phone calls:

    So maybe complaining to the phone company will work

    Lol.



  • @cheong said in Spam phone calls:

    some bad people discovered that they can use some device to change the caller ID displayed to others. (The programme shown on TV show demo-ed calling with number displayed as 999 - the emergency phone number here) It took a few months for the mobile service providers to develop ways to block those spoofed calls.

    It's taken them years here and they still haven't figured out a way to do it.

    The other day I was checking the voicemail on my VOIP number and found a message claiming that the IRS was going to sue me. The number shown in the log was "011 +techinfo2".

    First time I've received a call from a non-numeric number.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @da-Doctah said in Spam phone calls:

    It's taken them years here and they still haven't figured out a way to do it.

    Strictly, they've not been presented with an appropriate incentive. Making the telcos financially liable for the mischief caused by failing to deal with it would be a game-changer as they'd move to doing something that actually works: stripping the information before passing it on, which is much simpler to do. They could then start to allow the information through where there are customers prepared to make the proper assertion that they're only stating values for their internal numbers.

    But the telcos won't act properly on this until the regulators force it.


  • BINNED

    @da-Doctah SIP supports caller name in the headers along with the number, assuming all provides the call had to jump through retain the headers properly. Some devices and/or software might prefer the name when provided and only show that.

    Also, there's two standard headers: From (which has to be present), and P-Asserted-Identity which can be used to override the former. This depends on the device / PBX though. I know at least one brand of SIP phones that will prefer P-Asserted-Identity over From field.

    I am assuming most of these spoofs are simply abusing the fact that, IME, most providers only look at the From header. One exception I know of here is that one of the providers requires you to send your SIP username in the From header and one of your assigned numbers in P-Asserted-Identity header, which is what will be passed on to the callee (they presumably overwrite the From header on their side).


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Spam phone calls:

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    That's a scam and a net neutrality violation.

    Hurray for bullshit regulation that prevents innovation and competition!

    "Innovation" is not really something you want from a dumb pipe; you want it to be a dumb pipe. And you specifically don't want them "innovating" new ways to milk more money out of you by playing around with their billing and adding confusing gimmicks.

    And how, pray tell, does a regulation which prevents ISPs from abusing their position in anticompetitive ways "prevent competition"?


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @anotherusername said in Spam phone calls:

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    @anotherusername said in Spam phone calls:

    That's not how it's being offered though. Anything that's detected as video gets optimized. Unless you decide to opt out; then nothing is. Or the site can opt out; then nobody gets optimized videos from their site. So far no sites have opted out, though.

    Uhh... where are you getting this from? Because that is exactly how Binge-On works.

    From their website.

    Detectable video typically streams at DVD quality (480p+) with Binge On unless video provider opts-out

    it provides a great DVD-quality experience (typically 480p or better) for all detectable video while using a fraction of the data, unless a provider chooses to opt-out of the program

    If providers meet technical requirements, we’ll investigate the feasibility of adding them. No one pays to join and no money is exchanged.

    This sounds great until you realize that the majority of video these days is over HTTPS, which means it's literally not possible to detect video or interfere with the details of the stream unless the provider is running a MITM attack on you with bogus SSL certificates. So they can say that that's what they're doing, but the reality is a different matter entirely.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    "Innovation" is not really something you want from a dumb pipe; you want it to be a dumb pipe. And you specifically don't want them "innovating" new ways to milk more money out of you by playing around with their billing and adding confusing gimmicks.

    Fuck off telling me what I want and don't want.

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    And how, pray tell, does a regulation which prevents ISPs from abusing their position in anticompetitive ways "prevent competition"?

    You're begging the question here. Also, remember the thing where T-Mobile was competing based on the way they were treating your streaming? Did you forget that already?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    This sounds great until you realize that the majority of video these days is over HTTPS, which means it's literally not possible to detect video or interfere with the details of the stream unless the provider is running a MITM attack on you with bogus SSL certificates.

    The majority of video is also associated with a fairly small number of sites and has relatively consistent traffic levels associated with a connection. They might not know which video you're watching, but the provider can have a very good idea what's going on anyway by basic metadata analysis.



  • @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    This sounds great until you realize that the majority of video these days is over HTTPS, which means it's literally not possible to detect video or interfere with the details of the stream unless the provider is running a MITM attack on you with bogus SSL certificates. So they can say that that's what they're doing, but the reality is a different matter entirely.

    If you read the technical PDF I posted, that's already been covered.

    Ø Video must be delivered over T-Mobile’s network in a way that allows T-Mobile to identify the provider’s video traffic as video. This requires that video detection signatures be present. T-Mobile will work with content providers to ensure that our networks work together to properly detect video and we will continue to work with content providers as new traffic identification means are needed in the event of future technology enhancement or changes. Use of technology protocols which make detection of video difficult such as https and UDP require additional collaboration with T-Mobile to enable the video detection.



  • @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    "Innovation" is not really something you want from a dumb pipe; you want it to be a dumb pipe.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @anotherusername said in Spam phone calls:

    If you read the technical PDF I posted, that's already been covered.

    Ø Video must be delivered over T-Mobile’s network in a way that allows T-Mobile to identify the provider’s video traffic as video. This requires that video detection signatures be present. T-Mobile will work with content providers to ensure that our networks work together to properly detect video and we will continue to work with content providers as new traffic identification means are needed in the event of future technology enhancement or changes. Use of technology protocols which make detection of video difficult such as https and UDP require additional collaboration with T-Mobile to enable the video detection.

    So in other words, this system benefits powerful incumbents with the resources to devote to a project like that, at the expense of innovative (but low-budget) newcomers, which is exactly the problem.



  • @masonwheeler They're literally offering their help to get things integrated... I'm not sure what more they could do.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @anotherusername said in Spam phone calls:

    @masonwheeler They're literally offering their help to get things integrated... I'm not sure what more they could do.

    Not invent fake problems in the first place, just for starters? Then you don't need bogus solutions.



  • @masonwheeler It's not a fake problem. They're trying to reduce the amount of data used by streaming video services. They're offering incentive for users to adopt this option.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @anotherusername said in Spam phone calls:

    @masonwheeler It's not a fake problem. They're trying to reduce the amount of data used by streaming video services. They're offering incentive for users to adopt this option.

    Network congestion, and thus the need for data caps to alleviate network congestion, is a fake problem.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    Not invent fake problems in the first place, just for starters?

    Oh, so me avoiding streaming video because I don't want to use up my data isn't a problem? What the fuck are you talking about?


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Spam phone calls:

    Oh, so me avoiding streaming video because I don't want to use up my data isn't a problem? What the fuck are you talking about?

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    1. Enact arbitrary data caps with no basis in reality, under the (untruthful) premise that it helps keep network congestion down
    2. Exempt some of the highest-data services around from the caps, thus proving that you were flat-out lying about point #1
    3. Watch journalists who don't understand basic math fall all over themselves praising your service
    4. ??? ??? ???
    5. Profit

    To draw an analogy, imagine if Superman used his heat vision to set a building on fire, and then rescued all the people inside, and everyone started gushing about what a great hero he was and completely ignoring the fact that he was the one who set the fire in the first place.

    Please try to keep up.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    Please try to keep up.

    If you're just going to repeat stupid things you already said that don't address the issue you should just stop posting.

    Or are you also a communist who thinks that paying for a service is some kind of bullshit?


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Spam phone calls:

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    Please try to keep up.

    If you're just going to repeat stupid things you already said that don't address the issue you should just stop posting.

    That's the entire point: it addressed the issue a few days ago. Please try to keep up.

    Or are you also a communist who thinks that paying for a service is some kind of bullshit?

    How in the world are you getting that from what I said? Or are you simply aware that you have no real argument to make, and thus you resort to emotionally-charged namecalling in an attempt to distract from the weakness of your position?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    How in the world are you getting that from what I said?

    It's the best explanation for why you would respond to what I wrote the way you did.

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    Or are you simply aware that you have no real argument to make, and thus you resort to emotionally-charged namecalling in an attempt to distract from the weakness of your position?

    I'm not convinced you've read anything I wrote here. None of your responses betray any comprehension.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Spam phone calls:

    It's the best explanation for why you would respond to what I wrote the way you did.

    Please explain your line of reasoning, because right now the only one I can mentally reconstruct in my head has an enormous leap of logic in the middle of it.

    Either that, or you're simply aware that you have no real argument to make, and thus you resort to emotionally-charged namecalling in an attempt to distract from the weakness of your position. Not sure which TBH.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    Please explain your line of reasoning, because right now the only one I can mentally reconstruct in my head has an enormous leap of logic in the middle of it.

    Here, look, WTF is this shit:

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    Enact arbitrary data caps with no basis in reality

    You are apparently shocked that businesses exist to make money and want to charge customers for providing services. Someone comes up with a different way to operate and you deny that there's any innovation or anything going on and that it's morally wrong or something (assertions about a dumb tube should stay a dumb tube).

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    Either that, or you're simply aware that you have no real argument to make, and thus you resort to emotionally-charged namecalling in an attempt to distract from the weakness of your position.

    If my position is weak, no one has pointed it out.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    Network congestion, and thus the need for data caps to alleviate network congestion, is a fake problem.

    Wut?

    The network itself isn't infinite. For any particular link at a particular time, there's a physical limit to how much data you push over it. New technology might increase that limit, but you can't fit an infinite amount down instantly, no matter what the ISP's marketing department says. For a connection to a particular server, the upper limit on the amount that you can shift to it is the minimum of the upper limits on the links in the path to that server. It's also possible that there might be throttling in other places too (including at the remote server end) but the usual limit, especially for domestic networking, is the local link as that tends to be the narrowest for economic reasons. (Infrastructure has real costs. Whodathunkit?)

    OTOH, the limits really are primarily caused by economics; for almost everyone, the bandwidth you have is governed almost entirely by how much you pay. Or how much the ISP pays, which is how much you pay by proxy, where the proxy has an incentive to screw you over. You need to stop fucking around and focus on getting a free market in ISP services going. That'll make some big incumbents very unhappy, but that's largely the point.

    The heart of what network neutrality ought to be about is ensuring that any particular service level can be available on a non-discriminatory way. Instead, it's become an argument about prices and lack of competition…


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @dkf said in Spam phone calls:

    OTOH, the limits really are primarily caused by economics

    Which, as we all know, communists do not understand. Therefore, @masonwheeler is a communist. QED


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said in Spam phone calls:

    Therefore, @masonwheeler is a communist.

    I was just going with “idiot”. :p


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Spam phone calls:

    You are apparently shocked that businesses exist to make money and want to charge customers for providing services.

    Not at all. I have nothing against profiting. I do, however, have everything against profiteering.

    Someone comes up with a different way to operate and you deny that there's any innovation or anything going on and that it's morally wrong or something (assertions about a dumb tube should stay a dumb tube).

    Do you believe it's not morally wrong to offer worse service and charge a higher price for it, simply because you can?

    @dkf said in Spam phone calls:

    The network itself isn't infinite.

    I never claimed that it was.

    For any particular link at a particular time, there's a physical limit to how much data you push over it. New technology might increase that limit, but you can't fit an infinite amount down instantly, no matter what the ISP's marketing department says. For a connection to a particular server, the upper limit on the amount that you can shift to it is the minimum of the upper limits on the links in the path to that server. It's also possible that there might be throttling in other places too (including at the remote server end) but the usual limit, especially for domestic networking, is the local link as that tends to be the narrowest for economic reasons. (Infrastructure has real costs. Whodathunkit?)

    Agreed.

    OTOH, the limits really are primarily caused by economics; for almost everyone, the bandwidth you have is governed almost entirely by how much you pay. Or how much the ISP pays, which is how much you pay by proxy, where the proxy has an incentive to screw you over.

    ...which is where my point comes in. The limits being imposed are artificial, not technical, in nature.

    Even the FCC calls ISPs out on it:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/07/30/verizons-slowing-down-data-for-some-of-its-heaviest-users-and-the-fcc-is-calling-them-out-on-it/

    From the above:

    "Reasonable network management" concerns the technical management of your network; it is not a loophole designed to enhance your revenue streams. It is disturbing to me that Verizon Wireless would base its "network management" on distinctions among its customers' data plans, rather than on network architecture or technology. ... I know of no past Commission statement that would treat as "reasonable network management" a decision to slow traffic to a user who has paid, after all, for "unlimited" service.

    @dkf said in Spam phone calls:

    You need to stop fucking around and focus on getting a free market in ISP services going. That'll make some big incumbents very unhappy, but that's largely the point.

    My point exactly.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    Do you believe it's not morally wrong to offer worse service and charge a higher price for it, simply because you can?

    No, of course not. I'm not a communist like you. If someone is over charging then it's a market opportunity for someone else. And if people are willing to pay the price, then that's a signal to other providers that they could probably raise their price, or maybe just be more aggressive in pointing out the value in their service.

    I think your opinion that raising prices based on what the market will bear is morally wrong.

    I hope you typed up a reply about natural and other monopolies before finishing reading this, but I think we can all agree that there's no such thing in wireless offerings in the US.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said in Spam phone calls:

    I hope you typed up a reply about natural and other monopolies before finishing reading this, but I think we can all agree that there's no such thing in wireless offerings in the US.

    I wasn't thinking about natural things…

    0_1468268210514_upload-c36a147d-429d-4102-97a8-80f96b2b9b13


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Spam phone calls:

    If someone is over charging then it's a market opportunity for someone else.

    You do realize that we're talking about an industry with barriers to entry in place measured in years of work and billions of dollars in infrastructure costs, just to get into the position where you're beginning to look enough like an actual provider that all the incumbents will immediately start looking for any pretense to sue you out of existence before you can start to actually compete with them, right?

    And if people are willing to pay the price, then that's a signal to other providers that they could probably raise their price, or maybe just be more aggressive in pointing out the value in their service.

    Please bear in mind that free market economic principles only function correctly when conditions of freedom exist in the marketplace. As ISPs are a highly non-competitive market, such theories fall flat, and better predictive power is found in monopoly economic principles.

    I think your opinion that raising prices based on what the market will bear is morally wrong.

    I think that this is an incomplete statement.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    You do realize that we're talking about an industry with barriers to entry in place measured in years of work and billions of dollars in infrastructure costs, just to get into the position where you're beginning to look enough like an actual provider that all the incumbents will immediately start looking for any pretense to sue you out of existence before you can start to actually compete with them, right?

    So you do think there's a monopoly in wireless providers?

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    Please bear in mind that free market economic principles only function correctly when conditions of freedom exist in the marketplace. As ISPs are a highly non-competitive market, such theories fall flat, and better predictive power is found in monopoly economic principles.

    But you think it's a good idea to snuff out innovative practices when companies come up with them to compete against each other.

    You're kind of failing the Communist Turning Test here.

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    I think that this is an incomplete statement.

    I think you just haven't thought all the way through the implications of your previous statement to which I responded.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Spam phone calls:

    So you do think there's a monopoly in wireless providers?

    I do think exactly what I said: that it's an extremely anticompetitive market with extremely high natural barriers to entry, compounded by artificial barriers set in place by current players who have a track record of doing everything possible to keep competition to a minimum.

    But you think it's a good idea to snuff out innovative practices when companies come up with them to compete against each other.

    You're kind of failing the Communist Turning Test here.

    1. I don't think that zero-rating is in any way innovative
    2. I don't think that the purpose of zero-rating is "for companies to compete against each other"
    3. I'm not a Communist.
    4. There's no N in "Turing Test"

  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    I do think exactly what I said: that it's an extremely anticompetitive marke

    Which suits you just fine, obviously.

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    I don't think that zero-rating is in any way innovative

    Yeah, because why should businesses try to figure out ways to make their offerings attractive to consumers? How is that not an innovation?

    I wasn't conscious of the term "zero-rating" so I googled it and followed the link to wikipedia. The earliest references they had were from 2014, so I'd guess it's pretty new. But my research could be classified as negligent dilligence, and I'm open to hearing that this is something that providers have been doing forever and I've just not noticed it.

    Do lots of other carriers do that, too? There's just no angle here where I don't see this as being a competitive innovation, and all you do is brush it off as not an innovation without anything to back that up. Why not innovation?


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Spam phone calls:

    Yeah, because why should businesses try to figure out ways to make their offerings attractive to consumers? How is that not an innovation?

    I wasn't conscious of the term "zero-rating" so I googled it and followed the link to wikipedia. The earliest references they had were from 2014, so I'd guess it's pretty new. But my research could be classified as negligent dilligence, and I'm open to hearing that this is something that providers have been doing forever and I've just not noticed it.

    The old term was "fast lane/slow lane". Along with outright blocking of sites that an ISP doesn't like, it was one of the major focal points of the net neutrality debates. Zero rating is the same concept disguised as something "new and innovative" in an attempt to dance around regulations forbidding fast lanes. (As a side note, who puts in the emojis? A "nose and mustache glasses" icon would fit really well right here, but we don't seem to have one.)

    To give one obvious example of how it represents a highly anticompetitive conflict of interest, Comcast (a content distribution company) owns Universal (a content provider). They've recently begun to implement a system by which video content from Universal is zero-rated. The effect of this is to make video from YouTube, Netflix and Amazon more expensive to the consumer than video from Universal.

    If you don't see why this is obviously a bad thing, and a clear illustration of why dumb pipes should stay dumb pipes, I really don't know what to tell you.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    If you don't see why this is obviously a bad thing, and a clear illustration of why dumb pipes should stay dumb pipes, I really don't know what to tell you.

    Because it's not obviously a bad thing, and it's clear that you don't know what to tell me. You seem to be operating on the @Fox principle of obviousness and have accepted the nonsense about net neutrality as obviously correct.

    Now, there's an interesting difference between zero-rating one's own content vs what T-Mobile is doing, but even that isn't as obviously awful as you seem to think.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Spam phone calls:

    Because it's not obviously a bad thing, and it's clear that you don't know what to tell me. You seem to be operating on the @Fox principle of obviousness

    I'm not familiar with that principle; care to elaborate?

    and have accepted the nonsense about net neutrality as obviously correct.

    I've studied the issue extensively and concluded that the nonsense, such that there is, is coming from the ISPs and not from the net neutrality proponents.

    Also, you keep talking about free markets. Out of curiosity, have you ever actually read the theories of capitalism, as set forth by Adam Smith? It's very interesting to look through the stuff he actually wrote (as opposed to stuff that later people said about him and his writings) and keep this question in mind: each time you see a principle being advocated, ask "would modern 'free-marketers' agree with this principle, or denounce one who holds it as a dirty Communist?"

    You'd be surprised how often it's the latter. I know I was!


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    I'm not familiar with that principle; care to elaborate?

    Your arguments use the word "obvious" a lot. It does most of the work in your argument. For instance: "It's obviously bad!"

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    You'd be surprised how often it's the latter.

    Got any examples? I suspect I'd be less surprised that you were, but I'm not the Communist in this argument.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Spam phone calls:

    Your arguments use the word "obvious" a lot. It does most of the work in your argument. For instance: "It's obviously bad!"

    To anyone versed in basic economics, who understands the paramount value of a competitive market, it is obvious.

    Communist


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Spam phone calls:

    To anyone versed in basic economics, who understands the paramount value of a competitive market, it is obvious.

    But how would you know? All you've done is say favorable things about anti-competitive measures.


Log in to reply