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

311–320 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#311

Post by a_wild_dandan »

bedhead wrote: post #288
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…

Remember when there was no net neutrality and everything...worked great?

Remember having net neutrality and everything...worked great?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#312

Post by nullc »

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…

Your comment works from an assumption that bad governing is superior to not governing.

I don't agree.

I think particularly at the federal level a deadlocked government that is only able to accomplish a few things that can achieve broad consensus is preferable to one that governs badly and will invade the autonomy of the public who is, by the large part, capable of governing themselves.

Political gridlock is, from that perspective, a feature. Not a bug.

In terms of revealed preferences, clearly the bulk of the US agrees. :)

I think a point that gets missed is that in terms of capacity for causing great evil, money hardly moves the needle. People do-- of course-- intentionally perform minor evils for money, or negligently do somewhat greater evils because of money. Worse than money in terms of ability to do evil is shame and gross incompetence combined with power. But to do grandiose evil, the kind of evil that murders tens of millions, requires someone who wants to "do good".

So to many, a party that wants to "do good" but is transparently incompetent or beholden to irrational views is a lot more troubling than someone who wants to sell things off to the highest bidder and otherwise keep themselves out of trouble. Selling things off to the highest bidder is evil, but evil in bounded, largely predictable, and often recoverable ways.

If you really think that the public in general are rooting for other people's suffering in a meaningful way then I think you need to get offline and go spend time in person with the people who you believe are doing that. I am confident you will find that they aren't.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#313

Post by bloppe »

Auracle wrote: post #241
bloppe wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

The linked Wikipedia page about the 1974 experiment says "some schools moved their start times later" in response. I agree that trying to get the entire population to shift everything on their schedules at the same time would be inconsistent at best. But many institutions would adjust to the seasons as they see fit. And you want to minimize the inconsistencies; people would pick different cutoffs, different shift amounts, etc. That's the whole point of why it was regulated in the first place.

And DST is demonstrably good during the summer. It lowers crime and improves mood and productivity. It's just not good in the winter, because people in northern latitudes wake up in the cold and dark. It kinda does make sense to have seasonal shifting.

So, unfortunately, the best solution in my opinion is in fact to just lie to ourselves about what time it is for half the year. AKA Daylight Saving.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#314

Post by a_wild_dandan »

EcommerceFlow wrote: post #243
dvngnt_ wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

ISPs are roads, and websites are businesses and homes.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#315

Post by redmajor12 »

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…

[dead]

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#316

Post by Majora320 »

EcommerceFlow wrote: post #243
dvngnt_ wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

These are categorically different situations. In many places, people literally only have 1 or 2 choices for their ISP - not so for social networks. The degree to which the logic of neutral platforms applies depends on the availability of other options and the cost to switch; in the ISP case, the options are very limited and the cost is monetary and very high, and in the case of social networks the cost is low and purely social and there are many available options.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#317

Post by redmajor12 »

bityard wrote: post #248
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 a…

[dead]

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#318

Post by rootusrootus »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #294
feoren wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I’m not sure either side is invested in making sure people are suffering. I do think both sides have differing opinions on what the role of government should be in Americans lives. Neither side is wholly consistent, which is okay. Demonizing “the other” is the root issue. Everyone should stop doing that.

> I do think both sides have differing opinions on what the role of government should be in Americans lives.

I think everyone seems to largely agree that the government should definitely have a big role in Americans' lives, but they differ significantly on what issues they think the gov't should be involved in. Relatively few people seem think the gov't should largely leave people alone (although it is popular for some folks to say they feel that way while simultaneously agitating for the opposite).

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#320

Post by ModernMech »

bityard wrote: post #248
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 a…

> 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.

I actually see this too. The Republican party is on the verge of collapse not because of anything Democrats have done, but because of what Trump has done to the Republican party apparatus. He's redirecting all funds to his legal bills instead of electing candidates. He's causing them to lose in red districts because of abortion by previously unseen margins. He's telling everyone that voting is fraudulent so Republicans aren't voting.

I mean, Trump has never been the head of a non fraudulent, successful company in his entire life. Why would we not expect him to similarly destroy the RNC?

So if the Democrats are left standing, I see them cleaving in two, with one half being the Biden/Manchin/Romney axis. The other party would be more like the Warren/AOC/Bernie axis. MAGA types would be left in the political wilderness.

I would actually be fine with either of those parties in power.

Post reply on HN