Live data from Hacker News

More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

hackernoon.com

311–320 of 343 posts

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#311
post #182
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He created a new account to troll. It's an ugly trend; while it's minor, HN has a bit of a problem with this sort of thing. I assume that 'dang and 'sctb are on the case when this arises (and I flagged the post because of it), but it's probably a hard one to solve.

The solution is already in place - don't engage with them, just flag their comments and leave them alone. The mods are alerted whenever a comment is flagged so they can get around to banning those accounts eventually.

It's more that their actual accounts should probably be shown the door for that behavior.

Nobody's tripping onto HN, seeing that post, and signing up to shitpost.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#312
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for attempting to ridicule me with the ole 'conspiracy theory'. Go to the site ( battleforthenet.com ), scroll all the way down, it says 'built by Fight for the Future', and even links to it: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/ On that site, go to 'Supporters' page: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/supporters/ Open Society Foundations is listed there. They are not even hiding the connection. George Soros di…

Soros is a person with money who funds things. This is completely transparent, and I fail to see what part is sinister. What does George Soros have to gain from net neutrality? That's the part that's missing. He's doing it openly, with no clear gain. What irks me about the Soros boogie man in red cap circles, is that since someone "uncovered" his evil scheme of openly funding a project, he likely also paid busloads o…

Yes, and that is all I wanted to point out. That Soros is investing heavily in affecting the public and official opinion on some topics, such as net neutrality.

And for this I get called a 'conspiracy theorist'.

Soros is not a 'boogie man', he is a man that sabotages countries for his own personal gain. I do not trust him, and do not trust his 'philantropic' reasons. The end game with him is always the same, getting more money for himself in the end. He uses legit humanitarian/human rights issues simply as tool towards that end goal, and this disgusts me.

As for your attempt at ridicule by association, I am not American so I'm not able to follow; I get that 'red cap circle' would be Trump supporters, but can you clarify the 'paid busloads of people to protest' part?

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not say that something applied in California, state with the largest population, is an example of "work small before they trust it big". Are you proposing a direct democracy system where the regular election cycle for representatives is obsolete, and people directly vote on issues and/or can elect new representatives at any time?

Yes. This breaks down the concentration of power while still enabling people to hand off this task to a trusted delegate. Anybody that is qualified to hold office. Or it could even be a representative from the other house. And you could change who you delegate to any time. Instead of thinking they have a mandate for 4 years, the amount of power a representative actually has would go up and down over time. He or she c…

It does not break concentration of power, only shifts that power from one group of people (politicians) to another (cybercryminals hacking the system). As Stalin famously said: "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes."

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#314
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This breaks down the concentration of power while still enabling people to hand off this task to a trusted delegate. Anybody that is qualified to hold office. Or it could even be a representative from the other house. And you could change who you delegate to any time. Instead of thinking they have a mandate for 4 years, the amount of power a representative actually has would go up and down over time. He or she c…

It does not break concentration of power, only shifts that power from one group of people (politicians) to another (cybercryminals hacking the system). As Stalin famously said: "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes."

That is certainly a risk. But I think it can be mitigated with three step authentication and notifying a voter multiple ways whenever their votes are recorded or an election of representative is made.

And we can give people an ID code for their vote. And let them see how their vote was recorded. They could identify themselves at city hall or the state house and punch in the code.

Also, if we broke out support for each bill by zip code, it would be easier to assess if fraud has taken place. You could even publish those codes and who cast each vote on every street. Not the actual vote, of course. Just who cast it.

We could also use a blockchain to ensure votes cannot be changed after they are cast.

In short, I think there are solutions to the hacking problem.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not stating he is somebody Obama would have chosen to lead the FCC, but Obama saw fit to appoint him. A democratic majority senate saw fit to approve him. I do not necessarily agree with Pai, but actually take the time to read what he says instead of snippets taken out of context and it's hardly nonsensical or untruthful. In going through this process of trying to actually discover his views, I found several int…

As far as the Obama appointment, let me be a bit more specific. It has been customary for a looong time for the majority party to allow the minority party to appoint two members of the FCC. In fact, legally the majority party can only have three of the five seats. So even if Obama/Congress had gone against tons of precedent and not accepted Pai as the nominee, McConnell would have just sent another similar nominee in…

Just blindly accepting whomever the minority party nominates is not a part of 'custom.' Letting the minority party select who is nominated is. But nominees are indeed rejected, though often it doesn't come to a vote. Voting is often a formality as decisions are agreed upon beforehand, so for rejections see the numerous appointments that are left to "withdraw."

You're definitely right about the reasons Google failed to compete, but we can look at it even more fundamentally. The major problem is that people, for whatever reason, were insufficiently incentivized to sign up. When regulations are overly precise in what and how a product must be offered, it ends up turning competition into an RPG style stat check on scale. Could you make a McDonalds style hamburger cheaper than McDonalds? Not a chance. Fortunately, you're not required by the government to create hamburgers in the same style as McDonalds and so there is room for competition in ways outside of price alone. This not only enables competitors, but also requires that McDonalds not take their own success for granted. If their style of burger is no longer what their demographic desires, they can easily lose - fast.

So essentially deregulation opens up two mirrored possibilities. The first is if the monopolist begin to really carry out the doomsday scenarios some people are fearing, that's damn sure going to incentivize people to swap when possible. And similarly, the lack of regulation enables far more creative offerings. The cliche example is a nearly free email-only type package, but really there is no limit to what could be achieved particularly with partner companies and motivated investors. And these offerings would not be so readily matched by the monopolists since their value is far more difficult to gauge, and the value to ISP themselves would also be a dynamic value. E.g. an ISP partnered with Netflix would receive a different level of value from from a certain package than Comcast would from the same package.

Again, I'm not really convinced this is a reasonable enough argument to give up net neutrality -- but it's an argument that I think is fully cogent and viable. The thing that concerns me is that people aren't really even discussing his views -- instead just demonizing him, and justifying their own behavior by claiming he doesn't even have consistent views which is plainly absurd. We should be able to civilly disagree. And indeed as it looks like net neutrality is almost certainly going away, civilly accept loss. In any case it will be a great test to see who was right -- and if Pai's statement that bad behavior itself will be regulated against is something that he will stay true to, if necessary. If it does indeed become a serious issue it could even be a topic in the 2020 presidential race -- Pai's term expires in 2022.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as the Obama appointment, let me be a bit more specific. It has been customary for a looong time for the majority party to allow the minority party to appoint two members of the FCC. In fact, legally the majority party can only have three of the five seats. So even if Obama/Congress had gone against tons of precedent and not accepted Pai as the nominee, McConnell would have just sent another similar nominee in…

Just blindly accepting whomever the minority party nominates is not a part of 'custom.' Letting the minority party select who is nominated is. But nominees are indeed rejected, though often it doesn't come to a vote. Voting is often a formality as decisions are agreed upon beforehand, so for rejections see the numerous appointments that are left to "withdraw." You're definitely right about the reasons Google failed t…

Can you provide a list of a few FCC candidates who were withdrawn or otherwise not accepted? The only one I can find is from this year and Trump withdrew her nomination only to later confirm her (presumably once he’d filled the third Republican seat since it was 2-1 before that)

And here is a pretty darn clear quote indicating it is in fact unheard of to not accept FCC nominees:

On Thursday, a Schumer spokesperson said that despite Trump's decision to withdraw Rosenworcel, they would push for the Democratic commissioners of their choice.

“We intend to assert our prerogative on nominees as has always been done,” the spokesperson said. “The administration has always deferred to congressional leaders and we fully expect that to continue.”

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/322064-trump-drops-form...

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not say that something applied in California, state with the largest population, is an example of "work small before they trust it big". Are you proposing a direct democracy system where the regular election cycle for representatives is obsolete, and people directly vote on issues and/or can elect new representatives at any time?

Yes. This breaks down the concentration of power while still enabling people to hand off this task to a trusted delegate. Anybody that is qualified to hold office. Or it could even be a representative from the other house. And you could change who you delegate to any time. Instead of thinking they have a mandate for 4 years, the amount of power a representative actually has would go up and down over time. He or she c…

This is delegative democracy, and I’ve been thinking about how to try to get this implemented too.

Rather than trying to push it at the state level, which still seems a pretty high barrier for entry, I’m wondering if it’s possible to run as some kind of state or local representative, something like city council, and set up a system so that the rep’s constituents are the ones using it to inform their rep of their wishes. They’d use an app or site to vote on things known to be coming up in the chamber, delegates could make public statements about them. The representative could run either on a platform of “I will be bound by how my constituency votes” or “I will not be bound, but I better give you a damn good reason to vote contrary to my constituency if I want to be elected again.”

DemocracyOS and other open source tools are starting to appear that should make the implementation of any number of these systems fairly easy, though of course there’s still security and ID verification to contend with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as the Obama appointment, let me be a bit more specific. It has been customary for a looong time for the majority party to allow the minority party to appoint two members of the FCC. In fact, legally the majority party can only have three of the five seats. So even if Obama/Congress had gone against tons of precedent and not accepted Pai as the nominee, McConnell would have just sent another similar nominee in…

Just blindly accepting whomever the minority party nominates is not a part of 'custom.' Letting the minority party select who is nominated is. But nominees are indeed rejected, though often it doesn't come to a vote. Voting is often a formality as decisions are agreed upon beforehand, so for rejections see the numerous appointments that are left to "withdraw." You're definitely right about the reasons Google failed t…

There are reasons why he is demonized. He has dramatically cut access to the Internet for poor people through the lifeline program despite numerous speeches where he has purported to champion access for those users. He uses his chairmanship to accuse people of being socialists who support Venezuela and want to undermine capitalism. He refused dozens of interview requests before finally giving a partisan and vitriolic interview to Breitbart.

He has also coordinated with the GOP to a degree that is not at all normal for the FCC chair:

“The collusion became so obvious that Senate Democrats officially asked Pai and his Republican colleague to hand over emails covering their interactions over concerns that what they were doing was seriously improper. Pai and O'Rielly simply refused to hand anything over.”

Under Wheeler, we saw the FCC become strongly partisan for the first time. “Under Democrats, about eight percent of votes on major orders split along party lines. Under Republicans, only four percent split on party lines. Under Chairman Wheeler, 26 percent of votes on orders have passed with yes votes from the Democratic Chairman, Commissioner Rosenworcel, and Commissioner Clyburn, with Republican Commissioners O’Rielly and Pai dissenting. The difference from the past is stark.” (note the 26% number includes all votes whereas the 4% and 8% numbers include only major policy decisions. If we considered only major policy decisions the percentage of partisan votes under Wheeler would be even higher: https://techpolicyinstitute.org/2016/02/16/the-partisan-fcc/ )

Many arguments for Pai’s views assume he will inject much more competition into the ISP space despite not making efforts to address the systemic issues that Google Fiber hit around digging up roads to lay redundant cables (since no shared access is granted) or fighting through lawsuit after lawsuit to be able to use utility poles. Meanwhile he is open to further monopolization in the cell phone industry where he has already admitted he would strongly consider allowing us to go from four to three major wireless carriers: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-open...

Meanwhile he was a high level lawyer for Verizon and stands to greatly benefit (along with his friends) when T-Mobile and Sprint merge as well as when Verizon Fios gets much more freedom to overcharge and segment Internet service instead of becoming a dumb pipe selling data throughput as a commodity. It is honestly perplexing he wouldn’t need to recuse himself.

In short, a partisan stooge with vested interest in the telecom and ISP industry is not a reasonable leader for our supposedly nonpartisan FCC. You can demand that everyone “civilly accept loss” but I really see no reason why that is helpful, a good idea, or even reasonable given the situation.

I wish it would be a serious issue in the 2020 campaign but, let’s be honest, America has plenty of other problems and it won’t even be a minor factor.

tldr: You should expect to be demonized when you transform an independent agency into a partisan hit job on poor people and the average consumer while enriching yourself, your former coworkers, and an army of lobbyists for the monopolistic telecom and ISP industries.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just blindly accepting whomever the minority party nominates is not a part of 'custom.' Letting the minority party select who is nominated is. But nominees are indeed rejected, though often it doesn't come to a vote. Voting is often a formality as decisions are agreed upon beforehand, so for rejections see the numerous appointments that are left to "withdraw." You're definitely right about the reasons Google failed t…

Can you provide a list of a few FCC candidates who were withdrawn or otherwise not accepted? The only one I can find is from this year and Trump withdrew her nomination only to later confirm her (presumably once he’d filled the third Republican seat since it was 2-1 before that) And here is a pretty darn clear quote indicating it is in fact unheard of to not accept FCC nominees: On Thursday, a Schumer spokesperson sa…

Your own article exemplifies quite clearly that nomination and acceptance are hardly one and the same!

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide a list of a few FCC candidates who were withdrawn or otherwise not accepted? The only one I can find is from this year and Trump withdrew her nomination only to later confirm her (presumably once he’d filled the third Republican seat since it was 2-1 before that) And here is a pretty darn clear quote indicating it is in fact unheard of to not accept FCC nominees: On Thursday, a Schumer spokesperson sa…

Your own article exemplifies quite clearly that nomination and acceptance are hardly one and the same!

Wait what? I specifically said I could find only one example which was under Trump and the nominee was ultimately accepted. I also quoted Schumer and the Democrats saying this was without precedent. I’m really not sure what you’re getting at here.

Please don’t ignore my response as well as my request for any examples and then tell me an article I cited says something it doesn’t.

Post reply on HN