Live data from Hacker News

FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

nytimes.com

361–370 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

On the contrary: most liberals (or anyone else who doesn't identify as a [neo]conservative) are painfully aware that the democratic party is failing to represent them. We just know that that failure is less damaging than what the Republican party is up to. The Republican party is the party of unification and engagement. The Democratic party is the tent for everyone else. The presence of the former demands the existen…

> The Republican party is the party of unification and engagement.

The anti-LGBT party with a well-known track record of racism is the party of unification?

No...no it's not. They're the party, that when asked to NOT be anti-LGBT and not be racist, cries about their freedom being repressed.

The Republican party is the party of authority, tradition (Which is not necessarily a virtue), and conformity. They're the party of freedom, but only if you're a white Christian male, bonus points if you're rich.

The Republican seeks to oppress minorities, and then when asked to not be hateful, act like they're a victim of thought policing. They spew hateful messages on social media, get rightfully banned for it, and then pretend they got banned for their conservative views, which of course is pretty telling.

No, they're anything BUT the party of unification. They USED to be, but they let some loudmouth idiots become the face of the party.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#362

I'm fully in support of net neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!).…

This reminds me when I got a “survey” email from ERCOT, the entity that oversees Texas’ “deregulated” energy provider racket. I was ready to lay into them hard, but starting with the second or third questions, it was clear that all they were concerned about was to _sell_ new products — ZERO interest in hearing feedback of how terrible the system for end users, they just want to sell some sort of outage insurance prod…

> I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t a less than noble ulterior motive behind this push

"Oh your power is out? Guess you should have purchased a ElektriciT+ subscription! YOUR FAULT!"

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you being sarcastic? Did you miss the part where he waged an attempted coup against the US government to remain in power? I never understood that: I watched his speech. All I saw looked reasonable, appropriate, prudent. It seemed he was careful to advise no violence. That there was an "attempted coup" makes no sense to me. I watched his speech and saw nothing wrong. > I mean... he was just found by a court to h…

I watched your video -- it's media personalities babbling. You should probably inform yourself about the coup, the speech wasn't it. Here is some actual info to start: The J6 commission report: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6... The Federal indictments: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/trump-i... The Georgia indictments: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/202…

> I watched your video -- it's media personalities babbling.

Yup, but maybe it and related media stuff is responsible for much of the anti-Trump opinions there are. I thought the collection was outrageous, insulting, and dirty politics but settled on it being entertaining.

> rape

A NY jury found Trump guilty of WHAT with his fingers?

If Trump entered Carroll's dressing room, she was supposed to scream loudly enough to blow the roof off the store. Every girl over the age of 12, 9, ..., 5 knows this.

I just looked quickly via Google and found:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-car...

with

"Despite Carroll’s claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse."

and the article quotes some judge saying that the act really was rape. Hmm. If we are going by a jury trial, then it's "sexual abuse". If we are not going by a jury trial, then it's made up, cooked up, porn star and Democrat Party political dirt to "get Trump" -- Trump with a "porn star". Naa .... While married to Melania??? Naa!! While planning to run for POTUS, take a risk of being extorted??? Whatever Trump is, he's NOT bonkers, brain-dead stupid. Besides, in US culture, what happens between a male and female alone is unknowable, and that's why US females over the age of 12, 9, ..., 5 are strongly advised never to be alone with a male. So, likely we can never know for sure about such things.

As I recall, there is a document signed by Carroll that no rape ever happened.

Uh, maybe Trump was guilty of the bad judgment of being in the women's department of a high end NYC department store ....

Or, maybe it's about "defamation" of a porn star?

Maybe it's about getting $130,000 to keep quiet.

> Arizona

Seems to have to do with Kelli Ward and nothing directly with Trump. As I recall, Ward has been fighting in Arizona.

> Georgia

I would trust any homeless person in a plastic shelter on a street in NYC more than the Georgia legal system.

> J6

Maybe some day we will have access to and an objective review of all the actions of and evidence presented to the J6 committee. (A) From watching Trump's J6 speech, I don't believe he did anything wrong on J6 -- he didn't even have an opportunity to do anything wrong. (B) The J6 committee looked like a kangaroo court, not at all objective, just to sow doubt about Trump. It was not a real court and was just a committee of Congress, and apparently they are permitted to do whatever they want. So, they wanted to dump on Trump -- we can believe that.

> Federal

That's a bunch of DC stuff saying that, yes, Trump has rights, e.g., 1st rights, but still from his words within those rights did something illegal. Nonsense. On troops for J6, there are claims that (a) that decision is up to the Speaker, Pelosi, (b) within plenty of time Trump offered a big force from the military, (c) the Mayor of DC also turned down both Trump and the DC Chief of Police. Besides, what I saw of J6 was (a) US citizens legally petitioning Congress for redress of grievances, (b) some guy in a Buffalo costume, (c) a police officer assuming his "tactical stance" and killing some citizen for no good reason, (d) some small fraction of the people misbehaving in ways that should get them arrested.

As I saw the 2020 election, in some of the "swing states" (a) the local Democrats had a long standing, non-trivial, and effective machine to create votes, at least as mail-in ballots, as necessary and, in a close election, sufficient and (b) the state governments declined to exercise their authorities to investigate the situation. Sounds like machine politics.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#364

I mean great. I don't really want the things it's trying to ban, so good? But this is sorta like plastic straw bans: 0.0000000001% actual impact, all while making HUGE headlines, while doing absolutely zero to solve root systemic issues: Entrenched Local Monopolies by telco providers. So yeah, good, glad my Nebula won't be slower than my YouTubes, while all along I just wanted to ditch the assholes in the first place…

> glad my Nebula won't be slower than my YouTubes To be fair, wouldn't this still be the case? Google peer with many ISPs, and have a lot of server / networking prowess, so the YouTube experience is normally pretty good across the board. Nebula, on the other hand, is a fairly new player from my understanding.

Nebula fares just fine on my internet at 1080p and 2x speed.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#365
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In this thread we see the iron law of 21st century American polarization and the uttermost death of nuance. I’m sure someone will come along to argue how nuance is a luxury we can’t afford in the face of these communist/fascist maniacs.

Honestly, I put some blame on the Internet.

Before the Internet, people talked politics in person and nuance was included. Communication was synchronous, with instant feedback, and basically required engagement. You couldn't just walk away without upsetting social norms.

But the Internet (and especially Twitter), changed all that. People don't want to discuss, they want to "win", so you get 1-sentence "owns" that are just straw men. Nuance gets thrown out the window. If someone you're arguing with comes up with an excellent point that you can't counter, it's easier to just not reply. You're not on the spot, facing a human, and having to admit out loud that they've got a point. Nope. Much easier to just ignore it and remain entrenched in whatever bullshit you believe.

The other half of the blame is 24-hour cable news that has to constantly come up with shit to show, and now entertainment and news have become intertwined with a disastrous result.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#366

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.

> 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.

And so they vote for the party that is against rent controls, against expanding food stamps, and against raising the minimum wage?

Make it make sense.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#367
post #175

I'm fully in support of net neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!).…

[flagged]

Yeah also the non compete stuff is absolutely fantastic even if it only affects those with middle class income.

Shits happening again and I'm here for it. Constant gridlock in passing laws is terrible.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What changed for me is that my home internet provider (Comcast) implemented an overly-burdensome impossible data cap that I can only get rid of if I agree to use their router with deep packet inspection, ad injection, and more.

Fwiw you can set their router to bridge mode and use your own. It is probably still doing some traffic analysis but certainly no ad injection. This is what I do to get unlimited data without paying their exorbitant standalone fee.

This is a completely out of reach solution for most people.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#369

I'm fully in support of net neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!).…

What changed for me is that my home internet provider (Comcast) implemented an overly-burdensome impossible data cap that I can only get rid of if I agree to use their router with deep packet inspection, ad injection, and more.

That sounds absolutely horrendous. I keep getting surprised by how shitty Comcast can be, and at this point I don't know how. I'd get a 5G hotspot before I use somebody else's router.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#370

This battle has been happening for a better part of a decade and won’t seem to go away. Every time it’s defeated it seems to pop back up.

> This battle has been happening for a better part of a decade

Closer to 3; it started almost immediately after the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and the FCC first adopted nondiscrimination prinicples that underlie net neutrality as a basis for policy (but not as regulation) in 2004.

Post reply on HN