The article is ambiguous. It states "use IPv6" which at face value could simply mean support it together with IPv4. On the other hand, it states that they are running out of IPv4 addresses beyond what NAT can solve, so perhaps they may not have a choice in the matter.
If this is the nudge needed to transition, then great.
"Fragility" is the typical descriptor for this sort of thing. Advanced technology is very powerful, and that is obvious to see, but it also tends to fail readily without long-term planning, in disaster and war, of course, but also in more benign ways, like when a consumer becomes reliant on the technology for a way of life, and a corporation abused their unique ability to maintain the technology, and the consumer has no recourse.
Man, I've been trying to migrate to Linux as my daily driver desktop over the last week. I love Linux passionately. But multi-monitor and 2.5Gb/s NIC support is just a disaster, basically to the point of completely unusable. It's so frustrating. It keeps pushing me back to Windows, because Windows just works when it comes to hardware.
Not backsliding into feudalism?
This is what we get for no longer being the paying customer (that and a quasi Monopoly).
The point, in one sentence:
If you are the product, not the paying customer, then not only is there no incentive to cater to your needs, there exists incentive to make the product worse for you if it means the paying customer extracts more from you.
Users of freemium software are basically nothing more than willing cattle. Housed and fed for free only to be slaughtered.
Maybe people just can't help themselves? I fear we can't have a fair and free market if people are so easily manipulated.
I broadly agree with your sentiment, in particular computing equipment that I purchase and ongoing trends in tech (like smart TVs) that are abusive to consumers.
However, I find this argument not terribly persuasive in this particular case. The content of a website isn't an extension of your property. It is not even public property. Visiting a site is voluntary. You clearly didn't pay for accessing the site, nor was it subsidized through a social program. So exactly how should content (regardless of how trashy it is) be funded? Statements like "rights" (i.e. temporary government-granted privileges) suggest you are espousing libertarian views, but at the same time, you are not expressing willingness to pay for a service privately?
I dunno, it just comes across as demanding a handout. Meanwhile, not visiting websites that don't meet your vision for how funding content should be done seems like a perfectly simple and reasonable approach to have for this problem.
The problem isn't the technology. The problem is the people losing their minds about it.
Democracy only works when parties hold each other accountable for the good of the country. Republicans have abandoned this since before Clinton. Blaming the Democrats for the Republicans moving the goalposts is the cancer at the heart of US politics.
"Democracy is at stake" was not hyperbole. This is what a fascistic takeover looks like.
Am I the only one tired by all these franchises constantly rehashed to death?
We don't need immortal billionaires sucking up everyone's oxygen.