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

241–250 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#241

Post by Auracle »

bloppe wrote: post #104
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…

The US trialed permanent DST in 1974. In the first 3 months, public support dropped from 79% to 42%. It was ended prematurely. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time_in_the_... Of course, there's no difference between permanent DST and abolishing DST but having everyone agree to shift their schedules forward by 1 hour. So abolishing DST altogether isn't really a better option. I used to think DST was st…

People aren’t going to shift an hour. When I’ve argued this with friends it seems to idea is wholly incomprehensible.

Standard time is what we should be on. Anything else makes it way too cold for kids in the morning in the winter, it’s better for our sleep cycles (especially teenagers), and it just makes sense as far as the sun’s position. If you want to go into work an hour early so the “sun is still up when I go home at night,” feel free.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#242

Post by s3r3nity »

skyfaller wrote: post #222
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 soci…

> But they are also moving openly towards a fascist dictatorship

Democrats have been calling on Biden to increase his power through just writing Executive Orders to act on their platform, and bypass all other branches of government...but THAT's not dictatorship?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#243

Post by EcommerceFlow »

dvngnt_ wrote: post #224
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.

If ISP's are the utility pipes, platforms are the water and control what flows through them.

The whole point of NN is to stop ISPs from "playing favorites" since they hold too much power over what we can access. But if you ignore the fact that a few big tech companies (which hold a MUCH bigger market share compared to comcast/other big ISPs) basically decide what gets seen and what gets hidden, it's the exact same problem in a different disguise.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#244

Post by Aloha »

hathawsh wrote: post #233
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…

Don't you think that is a very cynical view? The party or parties you disagree with may not share your views, but they do have many things in common with you. In order to build bridges with other parties, it's important to believe that the majority of people who get involved in government, regardless of party, are motivated primarily by the desire to serve their neighbors and their country; otherwise they would find…

it is cynical - but its not wrong either.

Nothing will change until average Americans are fed up with the status quo, and force change - that goes for basic things like making the parties work together.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#245

Post by zoeysmithe »

smallerfish wrote: post #227
zoeysmithe wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 201…

To the working class who under Both Bush/Trump and Obama/Biden sent their kids to die in the war on terror and under both fund a destructive foreign policy that has led to incredible civillian deaths wordwide especially in the middle east, a "well one guy might make cleaner coal" is a cold comfort.

To the working class who labors under inflation with no guaranteed vacation or maternity or pension, its a cold comfort that the one guy "likes ice cream and is friendly." To the working class who can't buy a home, its a cold comfort that one guy has better diction and vocabulary than the other. To the working class that can't retire and will die at their desks, its a cold comfort that one guy said something nice about labor unions. To the working class who are watching the global south be exploited and the pollution there blowing upstream to the "clean EPA driven USA" its a cold comfort. To the working class who can't afford to have children, its a cold comfort that one guy has given lip service to LGBTQ issues.

etc, etc.

Neither can or will address the fundamental problems of capitalism that causes nearly all these issues. The working class will continue to suffer under any pro-capitalist leadership. One guy just has nicer window dressing than the other.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#246

Post by the_gastropod »

hathawsh wrote: post #233
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…

Don't you think that is a very cynical view? The party or parties you disagree with may not share your views, but they do have many things in common with you. In order to build bridges with other parties, it's important to believe that the majority of people who get involved in government, regardless of party, are motivated primarily by the desire to serve their neighbors and their country; otherwise they would find…

Look, I'm not saying the Republican Party are Nazis. But let's just imagine they were. Would we still have to believe they were good-faith actors just trying to improve their country?

I do not believe the majority of Republican politicians today are trying to improve the country. I think the majority are self-serving, self-interested, and corrupt. This isn't the party of George Bush—who I disagree with about virtually everything, but seemed genuinely interested in trying to do a good job. This is now the party of Donald Trump, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, James Comer, Ted Cruz, and so on. There is no equivalent to any of these characters on the left. There is no compromising with obviously bad-faith actors like this.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#247

Post by StuffMaster »

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…

Comparing Facebook to an ISP is highly disengenuous.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#248

Post by bityard »

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…

The poor state of democracy in the US is not a one-party problem, it's a two-party problem. My proof is the fact that each party holds almost exactly 50% of the mindshare of the US. As far as I can tell, this was achieved through gerrymandering, one party automatically and consistency taking the opposite view of a contentious issue the moment the other adopts any particular stance, and backroom deals among congress and senate members ("You support my bill for X," spin it to your constituents as good for them, and I'll do the same for your bill Y.")

Neither party wins elections based on which candidates are more suited to the job, they win based on who can out-trash-talk the other side. If this was not true, negative campaign ads would not be the main form of advertising during election season.

I predict that if one of the parties fails and dissolves due to severe missteps, there will be a period of severe democratic instability, followed by a split of the surviving party into two major factions, each of which settles out at around exactly 50% of voter mindshare again.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#249

Post by a_wild_dandan »

s3r3nity wrote: post #242
skyfaller wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 soci…

> But they are also moving openly towards a fascist dictatorship Democrats have been calling on Biden to increase his power through just writing Executive Orders to act on their platform, and bypass all other branches of government...but THAT's not dictatorship?

Nope! That's called doing your job with the tools you've been given.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#250

Post by dsr_ »

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…

It seems fair to me, because I've been paying attention to state and national politics for the last thirty years.
Post reply on HN