Live data from Hacker News

Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

techcrunch.com

231–240 of 250 posts

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#231
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even more egregious is the proportioned delegates within the electoral college.

While it is possible that the electoral college needs improvement or replacement, any proposals along those lines should be sure to address the dangers of pure majority rule. While imperfect the electoral college is meant to be a way to mitigate that failures mode of democracy.

I doubt democracy is kept in balance by the fact that Californian’s have a fraction of their vote count as compared to Iowans. I can’t imagine that the skewing of representation is actually a positive feature of the system.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#232
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is possible that the electoral college needs improvement or replacement, any proposals along those lines should be sure to address the dangers of pure majority rule. While imperfect the electoral college is meant to be a way to mitigate that failures mode of democracy.

I doubt democracy is kept in balance by the fact that Californian’s have a fraction of their vote count as compared to Iowans. I can’t imagine that the skewing of representation is actually a positive feature of the system.

We aren't just a representative republic. We are a federal republic, with rural and urban states, with large and small states, and the EC helps balance these competing interests. What Californians "lose" in terms of representative power in presidential elections, they more than make up in the legislature (53 seats in the House vs. Iowa's 4), never mind their influence on national economic policy by virtue of being the most populous state.

That the Electoral College defies the spirit of "one person, one vote" is a feature, not a bug. The EC forces presidential candidates to have broad national appeal. It's the difference between the Superbowl, where you win if you score the most points in one game, and the World Series, where you win only if you win the most games. The Superbowl is biased toward outliers---teams that have inconsistent overall performance but one really good day can win, but that doesn't mean they're the best team that year. The World Series mitigates that bias by forcing teams to win consistently---a team can have one really good day but still lose the series because they can't perform well all the time. Likewise, because of the EC presidential candidates aren't competing in just one election but in fifty-one, and that means appealing to more than just coastal states or urban population centers (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_Stat...).

Conversely, our direct representatives at the federal level are members of the House (by design) and the Senate (as of the 17th Amendment). All of this focus on the EC and the Presidency is misplaced. While we need a President with broad appeal, we also need Representatives (and to a lesser degree, Senators) who represent our interests, and here's where I think federal election reformers should focus: on alternate voting systems (like in Massachusetts), on better voter enrollment and balloting mechanisms (like in one of the PNW states, maybe it was Washington's that caught my eye), on non-partisan redistricting, and on publicly funding candidates. These reforms can and should start at the state level.

The genius of western liberal democracy isn't just the allocation of political power to the people but also the careful balancing of competing interests: No one bloc should have too much political power. Eliminating the Electoral College would be a move away from this balance. The right place to drive nationwide political change is in the House of Representatives, not the White House.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they have to look at all available evidence and actually come up with an argument for why the change needs to happen based on that evidence. Make sense. Proving this seems like it would be an enormously uphill battle. It would have to be an unambiguously wrong decision on the part of the FCC. (Otherwise, the court essentially becomes the FCC by upholding/overturning any "wrong" decision.) Given that it only became…

Remember that the FCC has to explicitly provide their reasoning for making their decision. Those bringing this suit don't have to prove that not having NN is egregiously wrong, they just have to prove that the reasoning the FCC gave is egregiously faulty. It is a difficult battle, but not as hard as you might think.

Especially if the FCC points to things like the provably false public comments they collected as their reasoning. When they say use evidence like https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251 it's not hard to prove that they didn't actually have reasoning for their decisions beyond "me and my lobbyists wanted it"

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they have to look at all available evidence and actually come up with an argument for why the change needs to happen based on that evidence. Make sense. Proving this seems like it would be an enormously uphill battle. It would have to be an unambiguously wrong decision on the part of the FCC. (Otherwise, the court essentially becomes the FCC by upholding/overturning any "wrong" decision.) Given that it only became…

Remember that the FCC has to explicitly provide their reasoning for making their decision. Those bringing this suit don't have to prove that not having NN is egregiously wrong, they just have to prove that the reasoning the FCC gave is egregiously faulty. It is a difficult battle, but not as hard as you might think.

Wow, apparently that comment was taken from some kind of boilerplate. Who comes up with this stuff?

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755250

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#235
post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, because they are very different, as explained by justice.gov [1]. Then please explain to me individuals like Sarah Jeong being outwardly racist yet a member of the blue check cadre. There is clearly a double standard here, and you seem to be in the grouping of individuals that appreciate the oppression when it suits your own interests.

Now we have moved the goalposts from banning people to giving blue checks. I'm not even sure what stance you are arguing anymore. One more time, Twitter is not the government. Mike Cernovich is outwardly racist and has a blue check, what's your point? Are you applying a double standard?

I'm pointing out that twitter selectively bans individuals who step over a line arbitrarily drawn by twitter, not anti discrimination laws.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#236
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If net neutrality is exclusively a regulatory power grab by Google and the like at the expense of traditional ISPs, then it's true Alex Jones has nothing to do with it. However, if one acknowledges some kind of moral principle that content shouldn't be discriminated against based on the source, then one has to show why that should apply to traditional ISPs and not to the newer Internet companies that run all the same…

It seems unrelated to me. If I write an Op-Ed and send it to the New York Times, it's not a net neutrality issue if they refuse to publish it. Maybe they personally hate me. Maybe my idea seems dumb to them. Myabe I ka'nt spel rite. Even though The NYT has a website, that doesn't mean they are under any obligation to publish something there just because I want them to. I don't see why Facebook is any different. It's…

You didn't respond to my central point.

You did however clarify that for you net neutrality is purely about application layer providers strong-arming link layer providers via regulatory capture. Thanks, it makes your position much clearer.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#237
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump doesn't actually care about it, and I would be surprised if he understood it. Right now he's against it because Obama did it.

I think you confuse the caricature of Trump that is pleasing to you to behold because you disagree with him with the actual Trump. While it is pleasing to think people you disagree with are blithering idiots, in case one of them is a President of the US the ignorance of the real state of affairs is not on your side and is not going to serve you well. It is always wrong to underestimate your opponent, it's particularl…

You have heard Trump speak right? You've heard his nuclear speech and his mouth instrument speech? You've read transcripts of his interviews? Listened to him ramble incoherently while tries to answer questions? Read his tweets? "I'm a very stable genius." "I have the best words." "My IQ is one of the highest." etc...

It's hard not to believe the caricature is real when the person creating it is Trump himself. Half of his tweets sound like literal caricature.

This is all completely independent of any disagreements I have with him. I saw Trump give a speech sometime in the early 2000s long before he was a serious political candidate. I thought he sounded like an idiot back then too.

Of course it's possible that he is actually very intelligent, but he just sounds dumb when he talks, or maybe he tries to sound like that to be more appealing to his base.

If that's the case though, you can hardly blame someone for taking him at face value.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#238
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now we have moved the goalposts from banning people to giving blue checks. I'm not even sure what stance you are arguing anymore. One more time, Twitter is not the government. Mike Cernovich is outwardly racist and has a blue check, what's your point? Are you applying a double standard?

I'm pointing out that twitter selectively bans individuals who step over a line arbitrarily drawn by twitter, not anti discrimination laws.

Which people continue to explain is perfectly legal because twitter is NOT the government.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt democracy is kept in balance by the fact that Californian’s have a fraction of their vote count as compared to Iowans. I can’t imagine that the skewing of representation is actually a positive feature of the system.

We aren't just a representative republic. We are a federal republic, with rural and urban states, with large and small states, and the EC helps balance these competing interests. What Californians "lose" in terms of representative power in presidential elections, they more than make up in the legislature (53 seats in the House vs. Iowa's 4), never mind their influence on national economic policy by virtue of being th…

Hard disagree - I personally will never agree to the idea that fairness is achieved by taking away people’s representation in their elected leader.

It’s a stretch to call the electoral college the genius of western democracy, since every other western democracy doesn’t celebrate a system in which the minority can rule over the majority. The fact that every other major democracy can achieve this without stealing votes is a worrying tell. American presidential elections are becoming increasingly unrepresentative, with the winner of these contests being the opposite choice of the voters who actually voted (Bush ‘00 and Trump ‘16). I think this distortion is a root cause of political paralysis today, as narrow minded interests continue to assert their control over national policy at the direct expense of the majority.

This is in addition to the fact that the electoral college is a throwback to before America was actually a democracy, and part of a system which was explicitly designed to enslave a portion of citizenry and disenfranchise an additional portion. Lastly, if the goal was to moderate the influence of urban vs rural areas, the population differences between 2018 and 1830’s America are quite staggering, and trying to use a system based on 1830’s population levels is nonsensical.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out the NY filing for more complete information about their arguments ( https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/nn_govt_petitioners_br... ). But the short answer is that the FCC is being accused of violating the Administrative Procedures Act. The APA was created in response to the growth of government agencies tasked with creating regulations, essentially to curb the power of bureaucrats. Agencies are required to…

> they have to look at all available evidence and actually come up with an argument for why the change needs to happen based on that evidence. Make sense. Proving this seems like it would be an enormously uphill battle. It would have to be an unambiguously wrong decision on the part of the FCC. (Otherwise, the court essentially becomes the FCC by upholding/overturning any "wrong" decision.) Given that it only became…

> It would have to be an unambiguously wrong decision on the part of the FCC.

The court—in an APA challenge—is not addressing whether the decision is right or wrong, but whether the process by which it was arrived at was complied with the legally-mandated process. Whether the decision is wrong (ambiguously or not) is beside the point, though that might be relevant to a challenge on other bases.

Post reply on HN