With Minnesota repeal, number of states restricting public broadband falls to 16.

  • Jarix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Okay fair enough and thank you for responding. Im not arguing the pedantry of it, but i do believe its useful and not needless. Meaning i think its worth discussing and debating.

    Because if im wrong, then theres no difference between;

    Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity. With no stipulations on how or why you’re using it.

    And

    Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity.

    So if im wrong as i understand thats what you mean, i would genuinely like to understand what/why ”with no stupulations on how or why you’re using it" it is worth including.

    Again if im wrong i literally cant see the difference and will go a long way to help me not respond to these kinds of things in the future and you would have done a service by helping me not derail other conversations. Which i will be very grateful for your help

    • Agrivar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Really? Are you on the spectrum?

      You’re not wrong, as far as the logical expansion of the statements in question. The ‘with no stipulations’ part is, technically, unnecessary. But we don’t live in a Platonic ideal. You are free to add reinforcing/qualifying statements to a basic idea being posited. If you’re being sincere in your request for clarity, and not just being a snark, my advice would be to ignore everything I say and just do as you want! LOL

      • Jarix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        No snark. I dont understand the point of adding that second line if its not accurate or indicative of the previous statement. If it isnt clarifying conditions of the previous statement, it just adding confusion. So how does it “reinforce”. Like literally how is that a statement that supports the previous one?

        Edit. Im starting to think maybe i am on the spectrum…