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

Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

ag.ny.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 316 posts

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#101

Post by maxbond »

quadrangle wrote: post #86
maxbond wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a meaningful tautology. "The system is unjust because it is unjust and therefore must always be unjust." We can and should improve society.

Yeah, but the other poster was probably being sarcastic and just frustrated in a tone that is hard to describe in plain text.

ETA: Upon rereading, this feels pretty weasely and I don't stand by it, so I'd like to add this was my bad & I'm sorry for being overly literal. Ultimately it's as much my responsibility to understand the sarcasm as it is other people to make it clear to me. I feel this way when I'm misunderstood despite being fairly clear, so it's only fair that I apologize and accept responsibility when I am the one to misunderstand.

Looking deeper I see you're likely correct, but honestly I disclaim responsibility for misunderstandings caused by Poe's law when I'm on this end. I see this trip people up all the time, so I know it's not just me. I see the sincere version of this statement made, defended, and doubled down on regularly, so no, I can't reliably tell the difference without a sarcasm marker (/s). I admit this is a weakness on my part, but I don't really feel responsible for it.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#103

Post by sublinear »

explorer83 wrote: post #72
boomerango wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Puts on conspiracy hat What if killing net neutrality was a given, but the administration wanted the appearance of due process… God, I’ve grown jaded.

I mean, the rhetoric for net neutrality was pretty extreme. According to the rhetoric of the time, we would be living in a world of internet "fast lanes" right now if net neutrality didn't pass. Only services affiliated with the big greedy telcos were going to be given a pass while all the other services on the web were going to require additional fees to get adequate bandwidth to/from. That was a major fear mongerin…

At the time home broadband wasn't so cheap outside of about a few hundred major cities, satellite internet was a joke, and phones were still on 3G networks with relatively aggressive data caps.

It wasn't obvious whether the telcos were going to keep competing and improving or just become complacent as a cartel. Snowden's leaks were just about to be released. The distrust seemed very reasonable at the time.

In a few ways the "fast lane" idea did get implemented, but in terms of cost rather than the speed of access. Lots of bundles between telcos and streaming services exist now (i.e. Netflix, HBO Max, Disney+, ESPN, YouTube TV, etc.).

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#104

Post by arp242 »

EGreg wrote: post #53
heavyset_go wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an individual committed fraud by impersonating millions of people, they'd be in prison.

It seems the thing to do, before you dump toxic chemicals into the water or whatever, is to open a corporation. "Mistakes were made", after all. This is only trumped by by sovereign immunity, for starting wars or oil spills or releasing viruses or whatever. "Bush is gone, let's move on - why are you still on that?" State Power is great isn't it?

Ambrose Bierce already hit the nail on the head in 1911:

"Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility."

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#105

Post by rozal »

Waterluvian wrote: post #57
wly_cdgr wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slap on the wrist? Lol. $61.5m would be a slap on the wrist. $615k is a tip.

$615k is a stern look by a grandma whose eyes cannot help but betray just how much she loves you.

Haha

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#106

Post by glitcher »

More than anything this seems to highlight how naive this approach is for polling public opinion - using an easily gamed internet connected form. Really the whole thing was just a dog and pony show to begin with. The FCC leadership at the time showed absolutely zero intention of being persuaded by the public comments as their minds were already made up beforehand. It was just some kind of hand wavy bs attempt to pretend to perform their due diligence before doing what they were already going to do anyways.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#107

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

explorer83 wrote: post #72
boomerango wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Puts on conspiracy hat What if killing net neutrality was a given, but the administration wanted the appearance of due process… God, I’ve grown jaded.

I mean, the rhetoric for net neutrality was pretty extreme. According to the rhetoric of the time, we would be living in a world of internet "fast lanes" right now if net neutrality didn't pass. Only services affiliated with the big greedy telcos were going to be given a pass while all the other services on the web were going to require additional fees to get adequate bandwidth to/from. That was a major fear mongerin…

What did these companies get out of pushing to repeal it then? If the regulation was banning a business model that no one was going to use anyway, I don't see the impetus to commit mass fraud. Does net neutrality prevent anything beyond fast lanes and censorship?

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#108

Post by yalogin »

How is this monetary loss calculated? This is absurdly low. Something that even a small size company will easily afford.

On a humorous note, may be they started with how much a politician takes from lobbyists for their soul. We have seen them proposing absurd laws for very less.

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#109

Post by jonathankoren »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #94
heavyset_go wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an individual committed fraud by impersonating millions of people, they'd be in prison.

Let's put some shareholders in prison.

Just the executives

Re: Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

#110

Post by RajT88 »

I remember debating with a guy I know about Net Neutrality leading up to this.

He was a sales director at a company that ran network backbone and fiber lines. He was insistent that the Net Neutrality debate was dumb, because it was trying to negate the peering agreements that make the industry run. The way he told it, anyone with a big backbone chooses to invest in peering arrangements with other companies who also make similar arrangements. If you are pushing an undue amount of traffic relative to the other party, you invest more. His take was that Netflix was supporting Net Neutrality so they wouldn't have to invest more in their peering arrangements.

Now - this is a guy who historically is almost always on the wrong side of history. I thought it an interesting talking point, but even now having had some exposure to the peering arrangements between (say) Microsoft and Akamai, I still don't know enough to be able to say whether this is even a valid talking point. I'm very sure this is just something he was told, and repeated ad nauseum.

This seems like the right audience (since I wasn't posting here back then), to ask if there's any legitimacy to this talking point?

Post reply on HN