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

FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#221

Post by zoeysmithe »

feoren wrote: post #167

This flip-flopping happens because there is no commonality to find. One of the only (effectively) two major political parties of the United States is completely uninterested in governing. They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. Their only goal is the piecemeal selloff of government powers to the highest bidder, and they convince their stalwart followers of this by making sure…

This is sort of a democrat neolib explanation that's only possible if you ignore the corrupting effects of capitalism and the unending class struggle between workers and capital, regardless of party.

The GOP isn't some weird guys who can't govern, but an incredibly powerful group that works almost exclusively for the capital owning class and uses social issues to empower that class. The GOP caters a bit to the workers class but not a lot and is actively radicalizing them to believe they have the same interests as the capital owning class. The culture war is by accident. If the GOP could do this all without the culture war, selling hate, etc then it would. These are merely tools for an end.

The Democrats are almost as bad, but also are beholden to some level of will of the working class, but generally default to the whims of the capital owning class as much as practically possible. The Dems need to get the working class on its side to continue to exist. The pure capital owner party is the GOP and they can't compete against them without this rhetoric. Hence, a lot of Dem ideology being lip service for populist worker issues and actual change from Dems is very rare, and when it happens, its under the approval of the many/most capital owners (see Obamacare being a mandatory private insurance program instead of a Euro-style socialized medicine program.)

The better governing of the dems is by accident. If the dems govern better its only by accident due to the strong influence of the middle-class dependent on good government to survive, and if the dems could maintain power with more corrupt governing, they would.

This is your classic conservative vs liberal divide that defines nearly all modern capitalist nations.

The difference between the two parties isn't that strong. Under capitalism, the government is a capitalist government and is nearly fully corrupted by it, regardless of party. The only real fix is to replace capitalism with socialism, but neither party will allow that, so here we are with the usual back and forth and hiding issues with workers class and capitalism under whatever social issues of the day best distract.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#222

Post by skyfaller »

feoren wrote: post #167

This flip-flopping happens because there is no commonality to find. One of the only (effectively) two major political parties of the United States is completely uninterested in governing. They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. Their only goal is the piecemeal selloff of government powers to the highest bidder, and they convince their stalwart followers of this by making sure…

I have to disagree that the Republicans do not have a plan. They have a very clear and public plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

Yes, they spend a lot of energy on obstructing the government from functioning, and creating a naked kleptocracy to use the government to funnel money into their own pockets. But they are also moving openly towards a fascist dictatorship with very specific ideas about how society should function, and how (and when) people should be permitted to live.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#223

Post by sanderjd »

s3r3nity wrote: post #188
feoren wrote: post #167

This flip-flopping happens because there is no commonality to find. One of the only (effectively) two major political parties of the United States is completely uninterested in governing. They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. Their only goal is the piecemeal selloff of government powers to the highest bidder, and they convince their stalwart followers of this by making sure…

> They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. This is an unfair analysis, and is either naive at best or disingenuous at worst. I'm not a registered Republican, but I AM strongly against an all-powerful centralized body of government that continues to expand exponentially. I would rather focus powers in a more decentralized direction closer to the individuals and the States themse…

From this comment it is clear that you have a policy and plan for governing. But it isn't clear what that has to do with the portion of the parent comment that you quoted.

The implication of the way you wrote your comment is that it's unfair and naive or disingenuous to say that the Republican party has no policy, because what you outline is their policy. But the rest of your comment just ... isn't their policy. (Which is, presumably, why you aren't a registered Republican.)

For instance, you say you don't like expanding Presidential powers. But the leader of the Republican party has a suit in front of the Supreme Court, right this moment, attempting to expand Presidential powers all the way to "immune from the rule of law".

Now, it could still be true that the policy of the Republican party is in disagreement with the desires of that person who is the leader of their party - that totally happens! - but unfortunately at this specific moment in time, "the desires of that person who is the leader of their party" is exactly as close as you can get to defining the party's policy.

It's a sad state of affairs! But I seem to frequently see this kind of wishcasting based on what people think the party's policy should be, except it has nothing to do with the clear policy of the party in actuality. (Note that this wishcasting thing is not actually unique to the Republican party.)

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#224

Post by dvngnt_ »

EcommerceFlow wrote: post #219

The whole net neutrality discussion seems pretty hypocritical in hindsight, since huge portions of people who furiously supported NN stayed silent or encouraged censorship after 2016 (including the sitting president of the united states) on Facebook, Twitter, IG, etc. Why would someone only advocate for an open, unrestricted internet at the hardware/ISP level? The whole point of NN was to ensure ISPs couldn't act as…

Makes sense to me.

ISPs acting like a utility service should not offer special deals to some companies in a way that harms competition.

A social media site enforcing their terms of service appears entirely different.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#225

Post by whatshisface »

lolinder wrote: post #218
feoren wrote: post #167

This flip-flopping happens because there is no commonality to find. One of the only (effectively) two major political parties of the United States is completely uninterested in governing. They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. Their only goal is the piecemeal selloff of government powers to the highest bidder, and they convince their stalwart followers of this by making sure…

This comment isn't directed at OP, it's directed at anyone reading this who might be tempted to get swept up in OP's stereotypes without thinking critically about them. I'm writing this as a left-leaning moderate who grew up among staunch conservatives and understands their philosophy very well. Conservatives sincerely believe that government bureaucracies are less efficient than a free market economy. That's not a c…

Part of the reason liberals hate conservatives and vice versa is that they think the government is actually representing their opponents. The reality is that influence is severely concentrated on every "side," and things that average people believe are only used to justify actions that a truly influential coalition wants to take. Your disagreeable family relations are as powerless to get a new issue introduced as you are, but they're going to be blamed for whatever advances the oligarchs who are opposed to your oligarchs have recently made.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#226

Post by graycat »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #100
jrockway wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair Congress does some work. They have avoided 2 government shutdowns. They funded the war efforts in Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. They passed the infrastructure bill. The reality is, they just don't care about net neutrality. I'm still mad that they haven't passed the bill that gets rid of DST (or rather, gets rid of standard time). Everyone wants it in both parties. Just get it done. Even more annoying is th…

> They funded the war efforts in Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Aaaannnndd?... You're just going to leave out the banning of TikTok while claiming a victory for sending my money to other nations for wars I do not want to fund? And another thing , government shutdowns are problems created ENTIRELY BY CONGRESS for never operating under a proper budget since 1997. All they're doing is fighting each other over a massive sh…

> we don't seem to be able to do anything about it.

I thought that, with our democratic structures, it would be really easy "to do" a lot about it, but you seem right:

I don't get it and have been guessing that

> It's always just a massive kickback scheme,

is correct.

A first problem is some basic vote counting: A politician does something, e.g., a "kickback scheme", that pleases 90% of the voters. Soooo, at the next election, the politician should lose by at least 9 to 1, but apparently not and I'm wrong and the politician, correct?

Uh, maybe the politician partitions the voters into 10 parts, has 10 schemes, and for each of the 10 steals from the other 9 to please the one, and everyone is happy even though everyone gets stolen from 10 times?

My guess was, if a good majority, 80%, maybe as low as 55%, of the voters would write their Members of Congress objecting to the scheme, then Congress would STOP it, in a few minutes. But, nope. Apparently tough to get > 20%, maybe > 5%, of the voters to write their Members of Congress about even a "brazen" scheme.

In simple terms, Congress is awash in powers, e.g., that massive one, "power of the purse". So, I have to believe that in any 10 minutes, Congress could have gasoline under $2 a gallon and falling, but Congress declines to do that.

The blame is the media that wants eyeballs for ad revenue and, thus, creates divisions, grabs people emotionally, avoids exposing the schemes??? Or the voters are "apathetic"??

Politics is goofy, inscrutable, and the media is right? Uh, ABC, CBS, CNN, ... WaPo are short on money so are not really "right"?

Back to something that makes sense.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#227

Post by smallerfish »

zoeysmithe wrote: post #221
feoren wrote: post #167

This flip-flopping happens because there is no commonality to find. One of the only (effectively) two major political parties of the United States is completely uninterested in governing. They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. Their only goal is the piecemeal selloff of government powers to the highest bidder, and they convince their stalwart followers of this by making sure…

This is sort of a democrat neolib explanation that's only possible if you ignore the corrupting effects of capitalism and the unending class struggle between workers and capital, regardless of party. The GOP isn't some weird guys who can't govern, but an incredibly powerful group that works almost exclusively for the capital owning class and uses social issues to empower that class. The GOP caters a bit to the worker…

> The difference between the two parties isn't that strong.

That's the kind of thinking that led to Bush in 2000. Say what you like about Gore, but his administration would have done a great number of things differently from how it worked out.

Additionally, you wouldn't see e.g. Trump's EPA turning up the pressure on coal power plants. In fact hundreds of effective EPA staffers left (/were purged from) the EPA in 2017/2018.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#228

Post by jmyeet »

tivert wrote: post #135
jmyeet wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... I am exhausted by the continuous flip-flopping of legislation depending on which party is in charge. By design, Congress is unable to do anything. It's either one party (always the same party) being completely obstructionist, even other presidential appointments, or if a rotating villain who defects and stops any meaningful legislation. Power has moved to the courts and to the states. Again, entirely by design.…

> By design, Congress is unable to do anything. It's either one party (always the same party) being completely obstructionist, even other presidential appointments, or if a rotating villain who defects and stops any meaningful legislation. Don't pretend like the Democrats wouldn't be just as obstructionist if it suited their political objectives. What we actually have is lack of consensus, and excessively polarized f…

> Don't pretend like the Democrats wouldn't be just as obstructionist if it suited their political objectives.

So if someone throws a stone at you, you might reasonably be tempted to throw a stone back. If called up on this, you might be tempted to say "he started it". Legally speaking, that might or might not be a defense.

What if instead you throw a stone at someone and justify it with "he was going to throw a stone at me"? Would you consider that a sound defense?

Take it further. Your defense becomes "he would've thrown a stone at me if he had the option so I had to throw the stone at him". No reasonable person would respect that argument.

So why is the hypothetical "Democrats would block a Supreme Court nomination if they had the chance" reasonable to you?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#229

Post by Dylan16807 »

smsm42 wrote: post #220
Dylan16807 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I assume those are the guys who are voting for the party opposed to one you're voting for, correct? Except that it wasn't the same way one or two decades ago. And the republicans have changed a lot more than the democrats on that front.

Except it was. The parties have been calling each other every dirty word in the book since forever. You can sample how it looked like about 150 years ago: https://storyoftheweek.loa.org/2012/11/running-for-governor.... > And the republicans have changed a lot more than the democrats on that front. Of course, your team have always been standing for the common sense but the other team is just crazy now. Long gone are t…

> The parties have been calling each other every dirty word in the book since forever.

I don't know why you think this is relevant to what I'm saying.

> Of course, your team have always been standing for the common sense but the other team is just crazy now.

That's not what I said at all. I said both teams used to be more similar in a specific way.

And neither one was very good.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#230

Post by DeusExMachina »

feoren wrote: post #167

This flip-flopping happens because there is no commonality to find. One of the only (effectively) two major political parties of the United States is completely uninterested in governing. They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. Their only goal is the piecemeal selloff of government powers to the highest bidder, and they convince their stalwart followers of this by making sure…

I recommend looking at your motives. Thinking that people who disagree with you politically want nothing else than other people to suffer, while being unfair and inaccurate, probably betrays your own desires.
Post reply on HN