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

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

hackernoon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 343 posts

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

#321

Post by mrgordon »

rhino369 wrote: post #278
mrgordon wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with gbrown. Pai’s statements are so untruthful and nonsensical that I can’t figure out why he thinks it could help even after reading many comments by him. His most clear argument is that it will somehow increase investments into ISP infrastructure (citing, I think, what happened in Portugal) while he simultaneously says we have no way to know what effects repealing it will have until we try it. Meanwhile a…

All your reasons for impugning his integrity boil down to you disagree with him. That is narrow minded. Pai (and many economists) believe a double sided market could increase potential profits which would incentive investment so ISPs could provide a "fast lane." That isn't "somehow." They thought about and have a reason for believing what they believe. You can disagree but that doesn't make them hitler.

No actually very few of my reasons for pointing out his lack of integrity have to do with simple disagreement on policy. I would try not to label people as narrow minded based on one short comment on the Internet. This community normally does a better job of not immediately devolving into personal attacks especially when you didn’t even ask what my reasons for disliking him are.

Read a much more in depth analysis in one of my other comments of his transformation of the FCC into a partisan agency, his attacks on poor people through the Lifeline program, as well as his close ties to Verizon which create a direct conflict of interest: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15781535

Not to even mention the post that started this thread about how Pai has accepted over a million fake comments on net neutrality from the telecom/ISP industries’ astroturfer lobbyists while refusing to provide enough information for NY to look into the matter (or investigating themselves)

There are people playing devil’s advocate for Pai’s views but how many people actually seem to strongly want these changes? Have you met any who don’t work for Comcast, Verizon, etc.? I honestly have not

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

#322

Post by eecc »

notyourday wrote: post #297
_asummers wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an argument that goes along with it. The refrain (and argument given by parent) about NN is that you can use your voice as a consumer to go elsewhere (to another competitor) in a non-NN world if they are dissatisfied with their ISP's NN policies. The problem I outlined shows that isn't really an option for many Americans.

It does not. The issue is that the population of localities does not want competition. That's why the population does not want cell phone towers ( eyesore ), the population does not want more wires on poles (wires, eww!) etc etc etc. And the population wants to protect the busy bodies that attempt to block things ( because busy bodies are typically nice old people who should really be helped to remain in their homes…

That’s a load of ad-hominems and straw-man all in one post. Please take a break AFK

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

#323

Post by indubitable »

mrgordon wrote: post #318
indubitable wrote: post #315

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…

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…

Your post is perhaps the essence of the issue. We are talking about people raging over Pai's position on net neutrality. Instead of discussing this, you respond with a slew of things that mostly absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Let's say I ask the average person who is raging about net neutrality, what are your views on the proposed modifications of the lifeline program and the vote split ratio under recent FCC chairpeople? Nobody is going to have any clue whatsoever about any of this.

And if they did they what it's about, I imagine they'd be even more confused by your argument which seems to be mostly just citing clickbait [1] with even more sensationalized language added on top. So for instance let's take that lifeline program. Did he "dramatically cut access to the internet for poor people through the lifeline program"? No. In part a response to massive abuse, they chose to be more judicious about how money is handed out - primarily as it relates to Tribal lands where, I presume, the government has more difficulty with know-your-customer requirements.

What happens is people who don't even setup infrastructure instead of resell access they purchase from a third party, and then artificially and fraudulently inflate subscription numbers raking in up to $34.25/"user"/month -- $9.25 in the normal lifeline subsidy, and a $25 'enhanced' subsidy on top of it. You'd apparently have guys setting up Wi-Fi hotspots and then claiming people using them were "customers", thus qualifying the "service provider" for the subsidy. They "charge" the user $34.25/month, the government pays for it. Imagine a Starbucks getting up to $34.25/month from the government for each person who used their Wifi.

Their proposed changes aim to get more control on how money is going out so they would only allow the max subsidy ($34.25) for companies who are actually deploying permanent infrastructure in rural areas. Urban areas and resellers in rural areas would still qualify for the standard $9.25/month subsidy. The prohibited Wi-Fi hotspotting as qualifying as an ISP, and set minimum standards of quality. They also removed a rule that locked consumers into a Lifeline provider for a minimum of a year - enabling them to swap providers as they see fit. And they've also proposed fines in the tens of millions against the "ISPs" who were fraudulently abusing the program.

Notice how the things you cite never really dig into the details? Instead they just use labels, aspersions, and completely misleading statements. I mean again you can definitely disagree with the FCC's actions on the above. Perhaps instead of cracking down on abuse in this way they could have instead tried to strengthen know-your-customer laws, presumably with support from Tribal governments. Why didn't they decide to go this route? What would have been more desirable? What nuance is there in Tribal - US legal relations? But instead of actually talking about things like this they lead with hyperbolic sensationalism that you then repeat, and spread -- and next thing you know everybody's acting a fool thinking the sky is falling and Pai is Lucifer incarnate.

[1] - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/28/fcc_chairman_ajit_p...

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

#324

Post by indubitable »

mrgordon wrote: post #320
indubitable wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nomination is not the same as confirmation. The US congressional system is built on a system of checks and balances. Even a single senator, lacking an opposed super majority, can indefinitely delay and ultimately kill any nomination. This, coincidentally, happened with Rosenworcel's initial nomination (in 2012) when the senate, thanks to a single minority party senator, refused to even consider her nomination for months until other conditions were met.

There's no gentleman's agreement like you seem to think, or at least are certainly implying. The reason that the minority party gets to select their nominees is because of the implicit threat of rejecting anybody except their picks.

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

#325

Post by bshacklett »

manquer wrote: post #161
matt4077 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not be enough to create exactly the net you want. But yes, net neutrality is strictly better for decentralisation than the alternative. That is because neutrality creates a (somewhat) level playing field. Without it, Facebook could, theoretically, pay Comcast to slow down a new competitor that is just emerging. I say "theoretically", because such an action, if taken overtly, would probably still run afoul of…

They don't need to _slow_ anyone down. They just need to be faster or better connected with the end users with lesser connection drops etc. This all the major players already do with their private networks and CDNs and servers at a global PoPs. No startup without serious muscle can compete with that . In the same vine major players also built and own dedicated DCs , hardware and networking equipment and locate it all…

Could you elaborate? It's very easy for a startup, or even a single person to get a CDN distribution up and running with global points of presence, though I don't have much knowledge of the private networks you refer to.

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

#326

Post by filoeleven »

stretchwithme wrote: post #314
mamon wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eac…

Have you evaluated any of the software that exists for this? FollowMyVote looked promising but appears to be defunct. I mentioned DemocracyOS in my other comment but have yet to look into it; it’s at least being talked about and has been deployed in a few places.

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

#327

Post by stretchwithme »

filoeleven wrote: post #326
stretchwithme wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eac…

Have you evaluated any of the software that exists for this? FollowMyVote looked promising but appears to be defunct. I mentioned DemocracyOS in my other comment but have yet to look into it; it’s at least being talked about and has been deployed in a few places.

No, wasn't aware of it.

My guess is it is unlikely to really work until the right use case comes along. A city-wide election might be a good place to start.

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

#328

Post by stretchwithme »

filoeleven wrote: post #317
stretchwithme wrote: post #308

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…

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 wish…

The ID verification is a challenge. We have vote-by-mail here in California and have dead people still voting.

I would have some annual re-qualification system, like maybe video comparison. You record a video when you register and another each year speaking about a specific current event and the system could compare the two and make sure the current event is correct.

Needless to repeat, but we'd also need methods for handling exceptions. Nobody should be denied use of the system because they cannot figure out how to use it or don't have a computer or smart phone.

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

#329

Post by stretchwithme »

filoeleven wrote: post #317
stretchwithme wrote: post #308

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…

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 wish…

Thanks for the link on delegative democracy. That is essentially what I've been thinking about.

TED talk by cofounder of DemocracyOS:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXfYNdapq3Q

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

#330

Post by croon »

saladeen wrote: post #312
croon wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

[quotation needed]

He sabotages countries through philanthropy... Could you elaborate?

1) Funds philanthropic projects.

2-3) ... Evil manipulation? Sabotaging countries?

4) Profit?

The reference was regarding conspiracy theories around the legitimate huge protests throughout the US in the last year. Suggesting that Soros (and/or other boogie men) paid thousands of people and bussed them around the country to protest, because surely people would have no legitimate reason to do so voluntarily.

Post reply on HN