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

271–280 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#271

Post by thomastjeffery »

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…

I won't believe that after seeing the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#272

Post by lokar »

whatshisface wrote: post #238
the_gastropod wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to tell you this, but if you can believe it, they're for the second time now, electing the most sadistic candidate to represent their party. This guy has promised to deport millions of people, put them in "camps", use the military to quell "woke" protests, etc. The sincere Conservative electorate had every opportunity to choose a less-sadistic option. They chose. OP's characterization is perfectly valid.

Trump supporters resonate with that rhetoric because the rent is too high, groceries are too expensive, and inflation doesn't seem to apply to wages. The causes of unrest haven't changed in thousands of years, but they can be convenient to forget.

And Trump (and his sycophants) seek to take advantage of this feeling. Using the age old approach of blaming "the other" and seeking not any real improvement in conditions, but a consolidation of power in their hands.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#273

Post by sophacles »

wtallis wrote: post #12
redserk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that these agencies and their powers did not spring up out of thin air. Various elected Congress sessions wrote the laws that created and empowered these agencies to create rules. This is a reasonable implementation of a "democratic republic" as Congress still has oversight.

The problem with merely having regulations rather than laws is not a concern that they may not have proper legal authority, but that they are less durable and more easily overturned than laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

You'd rather have some idiotic trash that's been elected to congress have to decide what a safe dose of a drug is than an agency largely staffed by people with deep medical training?

You'd rather have such a decision be at the whims of political showboating and culture wars than what can be proven safe and effective with actual medical testing?

I'd argue that a better use of legislature time would be to find ways to reduce the clout of political beliefs in people appointed to high level positions in the agencies rather than requring the useless fools eleceted to congress getting final say in what the rules are.

Seriously do you think the jewish space laser lady should have any say in sattelites or forest fires? Do you really want the moron that thinks injecting bleach is a viable cure to decide what makes for good medicine? Do you want a fool who think's an ar-15 with a certain set of cosmetics is a scary bad gun, but an ar-15 with hunting stocks isn't the exact same weapon to decide firearm policy?

Those are the people you are suggesting should make the decisions on specifics?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#274

Post by Ericson2314 »

Gormo wrote: post #253
Ericson2314 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proportional representation, multiple parties, and parliamentary system (no legislative executive divide) can fix this.

Proportional representation is a terrible idea, in that it entrenches the role of parties per se, but ranked-choice balloting in SMDs would be a massive improvement over the status quo.

Nope nope nope. Political parties are good. 2 incumbent political parties in a permanent grapple is what is bad. Politics is a "team sport", by which I don't mean it must a facile context practiced by west-wing-loving weirdos, but that is is a fundamentally collective effort.

Americans love to think political parties are inherently bad, but seriously when are mere individuals reliable? How the hell am I supposed to tell who all these down-ballet no-names are and what they actually believe in? Much of the rest of the democratic world functions fine with parties that are not all 150+ years old and ship-of-theseus-ed beyond recognition.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#275

Post by PawgerZ »

whatshisface wrote: post #238
the_gastropod wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to tell you this, but if you can believe it, they're for the second time now, electing the most sadistic candidate to represent their party. This guy has promised to deport millions of people, put them in "camps", use the military to quell "woke" protests, etc. The sincere Conservative electorate had every opportunity to choose a less-sadistic option. They chose. OP's characterization is perfectly valid.

Trump supporters resonate with that rhetoric because the rent is too high, groceries are too expensive, and inflation doesn't seem to apply to wages. The causes of unrest haven't changed in thousands of years, but they can be convenient to forget.

I just don't understand how, if their problem is rent is too high and inflation doesn't apply to wages, they vote for Trump. He has made money his whole life by jacking up rent prices and paying people as little as he's legally allowed to (or less than that).

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#276

Post by Spivak »

objektif wrote: post #15
lenerdenator wrote: post #2

What's this thing the government has been doing recently where they're no longer content to just let major corporations screw consumers?

Administration sees they are losing the young vote. Administration checks what can get them more young votes…..

Ahh yes courting the young vote, that group famous for going out to the polls in large numbers. The 16-25 age group is really into FCC regulation and anti-TikTok right now.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#277

Post by the_gastropod »

whatshisface wrote: post #238
the_gastropod wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to tell you this, but if you can believe it, they're for the second time now, electing the most sadistic candidate to represent their party. This guy has promised to deport millions of people, put them in "camps", use the military to quell "woke" protests, etc. The sincere Conservative electorate had every opportunity to choose a less-sadistic option. They chose. OP's characterization is perfectly valid.

Trump supporters resonate with that rhetoric because the rent is too high, groceries are too expensive, and inflation doesn't seem to apply to wages. The causes of unrest haven't changed in thousands of years, but they can be convenient to forget.

Maybe? But how is Trump or the Republican Party planning to address any of these?

Remember, Trump successfully pressured the Fed to lower interest rates while the economy was strong. Think that contributed a bit to the inflation we've been dealing with?

Are they recommending corporate tax increases? New marginal tax brackets? No? Did they add tax loopholes for private jets and yachts while they were last in power? You bet!

No, what they're doing instead is trying to scapegoat things like "woke" college students and immigrants.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#278

Post by Retric »

whatshisface wrote: post #238
the_gastropod wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to tell you this, but if you can believe it, they're for the second time now, electing the most sadistic candidate to represent their party. This guy has promised to deport millions of people, put them in "camps", use the military to quell "woke" protests, etc. The sincere Conservative electorate had every opportunity to choose a less-sadistic option. They chose. OP's characterization is perfectly valid.

Trump supporters resonate with that rhetoric because the rent is too high, groceries are too expensive, and inflation doesn't seem to apply to wages. The causes of unrest haven't changed in thousands of years, but they can be convenient to forget.

Don’t confuse talking points with the underlying reality. Trump supporters existed when inflation was basically non existent. His support is really independent of the economic situation.

It’s going to be interesting to see what happens in this time. He barely beat one of the least popular candidates in decades and then got crushed the next election cycle. Opposition candidates tend to do well when the economy is doing poorly, but he’s got a lot of baggage and the poles are dead even right now.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#279

Post by [deleted] »

cal5k wrote: post #207
thfuran wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is much more democratic than attempting to craft law by executive fiat What exactly "more democratic" means is a bit unclear to me. Is an act of Congress more democratic than agency policy because more reps voted on it? Is it more democratic because the reps who voted on it were elected rather than appointed by people who were elected like over at those agencies? Or is a policy democratic based on its alignment…

> Is it more democratic because the reps who voted on it were elected rather than appointed by people who were elected like over at those agencies? The presidency is not an elected autocracy. The extent of his powers are strictly limited to those granted by a) the constitution, and b) acts of congress. Attempts to circumvent these limitations through clever legal theories are undemocratic, doubly so when that circumv…

[deleted]

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#280

Post by 1980phipsi »

favorited wrote: post #170
dmorgan81 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress was destined to this fate when they eliminated earmarks. Earmarks, or pork barrel spending, were derided as gov't waste, but in reality they were the grease that kept legislation moving. A representative could go back to their voters and say, "I voted for this thing you might not like, but I did it to ensure this crucial local project got done." Without earmarks there is no incentive to compromise. Compromis…

Earmarks are back. They were against the House's rules for 10 years, but the 117th Congress started allowing them again in 2021.

And the past three years have seen the return of friendliness and comity unseen for a decade /s
Post reply on HN