Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dead People Are Posting Anti-Net Neutrality Comments to FCC Website

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 83 posts

Re: Dead People Are Posting Anti-Net Neutrality Comments to FCC Website

#51

Post by alpha_squared »

jondubois wrote: post #48

The fact that big tech companies like Facebook support net neutrality actually makes me consider not supporting it. I just don't trust Facebook's motives - What I do trust is their ability and willingness to screw over society in order to maximise profits.

I understand this sentiment, but I also think it can be a little short-sighted. There can be cases where your best interests and those of a corporation can line up. This is one of those cases. It doesn't mean that you're now an evangelist of the company, just that you agree in this particular scenario. Having a stance on something purely because someone you like/dislike has a stance on it is extremely dangerous.

Re: Dead People Are Posting Anti-Net Neutrality Comments to FCC Website

#52

Post by funkyy »

jondubois wrote: post #48

The fact that big tech companies like Facebook support net neutrality actually makes me consider not supporting it. I just don't trust Facebook's motives - What I do trust is their ability and willingness to screw over society in order to maximise profits.

They support it for publicity. Imagine if they wouldn't. They assume net neutrality will not pass, but they will make good face to a bad game.

Re: Dead People Are Posting Anti-Net Neutrality Comments to FCC Website

#53

Post by habitue »

jondubois wrote: post #48

The fact that big tech companies like Facebook support net neutrality actually makes me consider not supporting it. I just don't trust Facebook's motives - What I do trust is their ability and willingness to screw over society in order to maximise profits.

What you're doing is confusing a second-order signal when you have first-order knowledge. We should expect someone who doesn't understand net-neutrality at all to use second-order signals like "Big company X supports net neutrality, therefore I should do Y". If you actually understand net-neutrality, you can assign much lower weight of evidence to whether or not a company supports it, since you can decide from first principles whether you support the idea yourself.

This is what a lot of partisan media commentary gets wrong, since they tend to focus on "So-and-so is a liberal/conservative, therefore everything they say is tainted. We can't trust anything they say!" When in reality, there are facts to be had, and you can investigate them, and ignore who is saying what. The taint argument is only a good heuristic when you're completely uneducated about a topic.

Re: Dead People Are Posting Anti-Net Neutrality Comments to FCC Website

#54

Post by acid__ »

jondubois wrote: post #48

The fact that big tech companies like Facebook support net neutrality actually makes me consider not supporting it. I just don't trust Facebook's motives - What I do trust is their ability and willingness to screw over society in order to maximise profits.

Isn't Facebook's Internet.org project a direct affront on net neutrality?

Re: Dead People Are Posting Anti-Net Neutrality Comments to FCC Website

#56

Post by et-al »

ebbv wrote: post #50
notadoc wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what matters is that we shine light on their agenda so that it is not possible for them to credibly deny they are not following their own policies. And who is going to shine a line or report on that? The "fake news" media? Nobody will care, they don't want to hear it and they won't believe it, cognitive dissonance is amazingly powerful.

Cognitive dissonance is when you hold two opposing viewpoints at once. Like if you think killing animals for food is wrong but you love eating steaks and plan to continue doing so. It does not mean choosing to ignore reality or being willfully blind like you are using it here. I'm not sure how it has become popular to misuse it in that way over the last couple years, but it seems to be a thing.

I think notadoc meant to use the term "mental gymnastics".

(I agree "cognitive dissonance" seems to be misused lately. That's how language evolves, unfortunately. And to add to your definition, it's the stress from with holding two opposing thoughts, hence the dissonance.)

Re: Dead People Are Posting Anti-Net Neutrality Comments to FCC Website

#57

Post by beaconstudios »

rayiner wrote: post #38
PerryCox wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully the EFF can challenge this in court and this provides good evidence that the FCC is ignoring what Americans want.

Ignoring what Americans want is almost the entire point of regulatory agencies like the FCC. They're a bureaucratic/technocratic check on the democratic process. (Which is why, in my opinion they're unconstitutional, but that's an argument for another day.)

isn't the constitution itself a check on the democratic process?

Re: Dead People Are Posting Anti-Net Neutrality Comments to FCC Website

#58

Post by at-fates-hands »

awalton wrote: post #14

It honestly doesn't matter. Nobody at the FCC is going to read these things - it's there because it has to be there, not because they intend on listening. They've set their agenda, now they're executing it. They have absolutely no plans on listening to anyone along the way. Nobody in this entire administration does.

Sounds just like the previous administration and the one before that.

I wonder how bad it will get before this country finally realizes its going to take more than two parties to run this country well. People are getting sick of this shit.

Re: Dead People Are Posting Anti-Net Neutrality Comments to FCC Website

#59

Post by at-fates-hands »

awalton wrote: post #39
shawnee_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the folks who aren't about to give up so easy, here's the reddit sub where people are brainstorming ways to "make" them listen. Again. I imagine it wil be something along the lines of another blackout or whatever a "march" on the Internet would look like. https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchForNetNeutrality/

I'm not giving up, I'm stating the facts of the case. If you've actually got a concrete proposal on something that will actually shift the agenda of this agency, I'm 100% all ears. I suspect I'll be waiting a while though, since the FCC, like many of the commissions like it, were not created with the Russian coup like we're experiencing right now in mind. We can protest and gnash our teeth all we want, but very, very…

>> I suspect I'll be waiting a while though, since the FCC, like many of the commissions like it, were not created with the Russian coup like we're experiencing right now in mind.

I stopped reading after this sentence. If you want me to listen to what you have to say (and judging by the amount of paragraphs on your post, it looks like a lot) then using political rhetoric doesn't help you at all.

I want solutions, and I'm plenty fucking tired of pointing fingers and talking about conspiracies.

Re: Dead People Are Posting Anti-Net Neutrality Comments to FCC Website

#60

Post by at-fates-hands »

jondubois wrote: post #48

The fact that big tech companies like Facebook support net neutrality actually makes me consider not supporting it. I just don't trust Facebook's motives - What I do trust is their ability and willingness to screw over society in order to maximise profits.

This is in fact the crux of the argument that the FCC put forth.

They said that it isn't fair that some companies are restricted from using your private information, but huge companies like Google, Facebook and others have free access and free reign to with it what they want. Instead of making your data private from all the companies, they instead did THE EXACT OPPOSITE and made all the private information readily available to everyone and every company who wants it.

Post reply on HN