741–750 of 1001 posts
Interesting to watch it's impact in US in the long run. At least the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India listened [0]. If not the situation in India would be really bad.
The voters elected a Republican government. That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine. Anybody who told you that lobbying the FCC was going to make a difference here was, whether they meant to or not, selling a bill of goods. As someone who respects but mostly profoundly disagrees with principled Republican la…
That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies Holding it as "under regulating" seems like it's falling for the doublespeak. It is also Republican governments at every level that are almost universally responsible for the (over) regulations that led to the current monopolies of providers in most areas (often a single `choice'). If a city or region or even second party…
Net neutrality is 100%, unequivocally favorable for every tech company (Google, Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Microsoft, etc.). Are you sure the Democratic party is not the "voice of the oligarchy" here? You say that Republicans are incapable of building justification for this decision, but it fits exactly to the pillars of the Republican party -- deregulation, a free market economy, and a small government. Their argument is that NN is unnecessary regulation that limits the free market and oversteps the boundaries of a reasonable government. You may disagree with this, but that argument is a subjective one and not an objective one. It may benefit the providers but it also hurts the tech monopolies (which is why they oppose it so adamantly... unless you really think that Alphabet, inc. is on the side that opposes big businesses).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't turn HN threads into partisan fights. That leads to information heat death, something we're all here to avoid. This topic is already highly partisan, of course, so it's all the more important not to make it more so. This is very much a collective responsibility.
There's literally nothing partisan about this topic. The technical and academic worlds are virtually unanimous on the support of net neutrality. Even political support for net neutrality is around 83% across both parties. Don't shut down discussion because you personally feel ashamed that your party is complicit in this thing. It's not political.
I don't have a party, and net neutrality is one of the few political issues Hacker News has officially done something for, including quite recently. I don't fault you for not knowing that, because most people see only a tiny slice of what passes through here and no one sees all of it. But the dynamic of jumping to a view of someone as your enemy is a thing we all need to work on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually the voters elected a Democrat. The electoral college elected the Republican. Not your issue? I've followed your account for years. This is exactly your issue, and everyone in this community's issue. Without the Internet you have no chance of fighting against things like the new tax bill. It takes away your voice. It takes away all of our voices. This might not be 'your' issue, but make no mistake, it is more…
> Actually the voters elected a Democrat. The electoral college elected the Republican. You mean 48.2% of 58% of eligible voters elected a Democrat. You can slice it many ways but the electoral college is all that matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Republicans aren't pushing deregulation of the internet to make swing states happy. They are pushing for deregulation because that's what several billionaire campaign contributors want them to do.
Why is it so hard for people to take the other side at their word? Republicans push deregulation because they think it's the right thing to do , because they believe the market is a better regulatory mechanism. Perhaps you think this view is mistaken. Good, great, fine! Then argue against it. But there's no crazy hidden motive here. Republicans just disagree with you.
> Republicans just disagree with you.
The problem is they are wrong, the most famous deregulation guy Alan Greenspan had to admit he made a mistake with deregulation.
It's not democratic. It's republican. Remember that America is a republic, not a democracy. Each state has 2 senators/electoral votes because this country was founded as the United States. It was supposed to be more of a coalition of states united under a federal government, than a single nation. Also, California has a huge population with tons of representatives, and basically every elected official is democratic. I…
Fewer per capita in the Congress than any other state.
> and basically every elected official is democratic.
The 39/53 members of the House and 2/2 in the US Senate; the state legislature is 27/40 (Senate) and 53/78 (Assembly) currently.
It is not the case that “basically every” elected official in California is a Democrat.
It's not democratic. It's republican. Remember that America is a republic, not a democracy. Each state has 2 senators/electoral votes because this country was founded as the United States. It was supposed to be more of a coalition of states united under a federal government, than a single nation. Also, California has a huge population with tons of representatives, and basically every elected official is democratic. I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Remember that America is a republic, not a democracy Republic. Aka, Res Publica. "Thing of the people". A form of government where all political power originates with the people, directly or indirectly. Democracy. Demos Kratia. "Rule by the people". A form of government where all political power originates with the people, directly or indirectly. These two terms are not about how decisions are made. They do not dis…
Perhaps you should spend a little of time reading about the US form of government because what you described is very similar to the purpose of the House and the Senate. Barring gerrymandering issues, the house members are populous elected representatives with each state given weight based on its population. Then each state gets 2 senate seats which are elected within the states by popularity as well. Tldr; you've ess…
Please don't take swipes like that in HN comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually the voters elected a Democrat. The electoral college elected the Republican. Not your issue? I've followed your account for years. This is exactly your issue, and everyone in this community's issue. Without the Internet you have no chance of fighting against things like the new tax bill. It takes away your voice. It takes away all of our voices. This might not be 'your' issue, but make no mistake, it is more…
How ever did society function without the Internet? Were all leaders just dictators leading up to the 90s? It's hyperbolic crap like claiming this is the very foundation of free speech that leads people with opposing views to disengage, leave you to your echo chamber, and then surprise you when they pass regulation that represents their views.