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

Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 242 posts

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#151

Post by smsm42 »

fwsgonzo wrote: post #148
smsm42 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this "straight up bond villain"? This sounds like a legitimate disagreement about the order of priorities.

Because its not an issue about order of priorities at all. Not to mention some of the responses I've seen basically said "we know better." 80% of americans supported NN at some point, and so any one politician who votes against it is basically voting for himself.

I have hard time to believe response said "we know better". Could you quote one? I am seeing that legitimate "we have different priorities" (which is always the case - it is not humanly possible to accommodate all preferences of all voters in a way that satisfies everybody) interpreted as "bond villain" so I am suspecting there's a bunch of distortion going on here.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#152

Post by baq »

smsm42 wrote: post #146
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it useful, in politics, to keep a list of issues in respect of which I would, singularly, disregard party affiliation for. (The same with a black list. I won’t vote for a candidate on the wrong side of certain issues.) Putting it on paper is valuable. It clarifies your thoughts. And it makes it clear how draconian these red lines are. (I constantly re-evaluate them, with the goal of talking myself out of them.…

What do you do if none of the candidates qualifies after applying white and black lists? Or, if the candidate both promises something on the while list and on the black list? Not a theoretical question, I don't have the right to vote in US, but if I did, I'd be in this situation for the most elections in the most places where I cared reading about candidates.

You tell others to make a list.

Enough people make such a list, change happens.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#153

Post by jacquesm »

dcow wrote: post #58
jacquesm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I see. So this is the local equivalent for voting for a small party in a country with many more parties in the running for a coalition. That makes some sense, but at the same time it would mean that you are also voting for a lot of stuff that is reprehensible and probably against your own interest. Because once the votes are counted your vote will not be counted as a 'single issue' vote but as a total mandate for…

Republicans are reprehensible? By your logic we can never make any progress unless citizens vote for a platform perfectly aligned with their own values. That degenerates to everyone voting for themselves. IMO absolutist stances like this miss the entire point of politics which is to strike compromise in the face of disperate ideologies. Sure the two party system is broken, but the way to make progress is to focus on…

> Republicans are reprehensible?

Strawman.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#154

Post by pasbesoin »

pasbesoin wrote: post #47

My Comcast bill, over the course of two consecutive months since the beginning of this year -- and since the apparent, "inevitable" coming end of net neutrality, increased about 25%. My Congressmen are going to hear about this. About how, for the better part of 20 years, Ameritech/SBC/ATT refused to upgrade my neighborhood trunk line, that doesn't even support DSL. In a high-density suburban neighborhood in the home/…

P.S. I actually do, very occasionally, write my Congresscritters. I'm pretty careful doing so -- doing so well, I hope -- and I have some evidence of some of my correspondence having been read and paid attention to.

So when I say they will hear about this, I mean, they actually will. Though I'll write it in a fashion that is more appealing/compelling to them.

And regarding some of the history that may not seem to pertain directly to net neutrality? Look, these companies are saying a lot of things as part of their campaign to kill it. And the historical record demonstrates that, with respect to such statements, they are consistently full of shit -- in a self-serving way.

They are not to be believed. Neither the people shilling the talking points they've been handed by the companies and their lobbyists.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#155

Post by croon »

smsm42 wrote: post #151
fwsgonzo wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because its not an issue about order of priorities at all. Not to mention some of the responses I've seen basically said "we know better." 80% of americans supported NN at some point, and so any one politician who votes against it is basically voting for himself.

I have hard time to believe response said "we know better". Could you quote one? I am seeing that legitimate "we have different priorities" (which is always the case - it is not humanly possible to accommodate all preferences of all voters in a way that satisfies everybody) interpreted as "bond villain" so I am suspecting there's a bunch of distortion going on here.

Having other priorities isn't a problem, meaning it's fine if they spend their time working on other issues.

But at some point they'll spend an hour or so voting, and at that point your "priorities" doesn't factor in anymore, as you should just represent your constituents. Unless you have an incredibly good reason not to. "Different priorities" isn't one, it's straight up misdirection.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#156

Post by dcow »

jacquesm wrote: post #153
dcow wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans are reprehensible? By your logic we can never make any progress unless citizens vote for a platform perfectly aligned with their own values. That degenerates to everyone voting for themselves. IMO absolutist stances like this miss the entire point of politics which is to strike compromise in the face of disperate ideologies. Sure the two party system is broken, but the way to make progress is to focus on…

> Republicans are reprehensible? Strawman.

You said that the Republican platform has reprehensible policy. You then criticized single issue voting because when you do so you pull in the entire platform, reprehensible policy included, which you suggest ends up being a net negative, despite whether you agree or not. Now consider another person. If they are a republican and vote for their party, even if they disagree with the reprehensible pieces, they still end up having a net negative impact on society because of their platform choice, by your logic.

I'm not sure what other conclusion someone is supposed to draw. That's how the stereotype you used works. I'm not republican, I don't care. But I do know republicans and I know that calling the platform reprehensible isn't helping anything or changing any minds.

I can excuse it if you were only intending to present an academic example supporting your general point about single issue voting in a two party system. I often do the same and have fallen into the same trap before. But if that was your intention it was lost one me. Maybe work on slightly more finessed phasing to avoid the downvotes in the future?

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#157

Post by dcow »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #135
dcow wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand exactly what the parent's point is. I'm just continuing the discussion. The implication (and the sibling comments agree) is that you shouldn't vote for a party if you don't agree with everything about the platform. I'm defending the GP in this case arguing that I wish collectively we would focus more on single issues and less on broad sweeping platform stereotypes (e.g. reprehensible republican). I initi…

You are again conflating disagreements with "reprehensible". I disagree with lots of politicians on lots of issues. I find very few of those positions to be actually reprehensible.

I think we actually agree. Or at least that's what I'm saying too. I didn't use reprehensible, the comment I was responding too did. My point is your point, just worded differently.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#158

Post by zaphirplane »

smsm42 wrote: post #144
arbie wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That it was a non-issue for them, and that they deal with dozens of "real problems" that their constituents face every day.

How is this "straight up bond villain"? This sounds like a legitimate disagreement about the order of priorities.

What’s priority have to do with voting on the issue.” Look it’s low on my priority list I’m going to vote other way without understanding” Let’s call it as is, low priority I’ll trade my vote in exchange for something higher importance to me.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#159

Post by whamlastxmas »

mac01021 wrote: post #121
komali2 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For everyone's amusement, can you let us know what he says? When I lived in Texas, the responses I got from my representatives were comically evil. Straight up bond villain.

What was the basic gist of the response?

My response from a Texas senator was that he "supports net neutrality" and then went on define net neutrality as the exact opposite of the commonly accepted meaning.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#160

Post by scottmf »

hasahmed wrote: post #119
chocolatebunny wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there's a "Letter's from my Congressman" website where random people post letters they got from their congressman.

Time to make it happen

We’re on Hacker “I could make Airbnb in a weekend” News. Why doesn’t it exist yet?
Post reply on HN