It feels dirty to agree with an ISP on something. But even the worst corporations are on the right side of something from time to time I suppose.

  • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    3 months ago

    Not water baloons, but some companies will cut off your water if you’re sharing it with a neighbor. (especially if that neighbor had their water cut off for not paying a bill)

      • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I know you know this but it bears saying explicitly: it’s because pretty much all laws are out there to enforce property first. Humanity is secondary. We all know implicitly that it’s not illegal to share your water because it’s unethical. It is illegal because making it illegal protects the water company’s profits, humanity be damned.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          3 months ago

          We all know implicitly that it’s not illegal to share your water because it’s unethical. It is illegal because making it illegal protects the water company’s profits, humanity be damned.

          it’s perfectly ethical, unless i’m stealing the water, they’re using the same water i’m using and that means i’m paying for it. It’s literally not a problem.

          It might cut flat charges but, get fucked.

          • feannag@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            3 months ago

            I think you misinterpreted, because you two are saying the same thing. It is ethical to share. Therefore, it has not been made illegal for being unethical (because it is ethical), it has been made illegal to protect profits.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          For sure. Even when it isn’t a law the same outcome happens when corporations get the police to enforce their policies.

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          How though? If you’re using extra water to share with your neighbor, and YOU still pay your water bill, they still get extra money for extra usage, right? It just comes from your wallet rather than your neighbors.

          • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Because your sharing your water with them disincentivizes their paying their bill.

            Extrapolating on this, if you could legally share your water with the neighborhood couldn’t an enterprising person with a zeriscaped yard sell their water to a thirsty lawned neighbor? That’s money the water company considers theirs

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      3 months ago

      Garbage collection services dislike when people throw their garbage in neighbor’s cans even when the neighbor is paying for the larger can (e.g. the disposal volume being used). This has led to some garbage distribution piracy alongside recycling collection crews.

      In case you wanted some cyberpunk dystopia in your cyberpunk dystopia.

        • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Two ways.

          The outer layer is the ad-hoc (often underground or criminal) system that serves to rectify a problem caused by the unjust rules of the legitimate system, in this case, refuse pirates who match overflow to underused capacity.

          The inner layer comes from service to the community becoming punk when the mainstream becomes destructive. When recycling bandits start redistributing garbage they go from being commensal with their neighborhood (causing some noise pollution and some additional mess) to mutualist (providing a service to the neighborhood they scavenge).

          • otp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I appreciate the explanation, but I don’t think I follow what that has to do with cyberpunk.

            Wikipedia describes cyberpunk as “futuristic technological and scientific achievements, such as artificial intelligence and cyberware, juxtaposed with societal collapse, dystopia or decay”.

            I understand the relation to dystopia, and even your comparison to the punk movement, but I don’t get the cyberpunk comparison, lol

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        Wow, that’s really odd. My garbage company doesn’t care what I do with my or anyone else’s can. I can even set mine on my side of the street, and as soon as it empties, refill it and move it across the street (there’s like a 15 min gap between them), and they literally don’t care. I also overfill it fairly often, and again, they don’t care. As long as the truck can pick it up and dump it, they’re happy.