561–570 of 598 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The parent post misses the main reason they sell these. It's not for the ad injection but because they broadcast a Wi-Fi hotspot that you cannot turn off, which shares your internet connection.
So what? You don't find it useful to be able to use Wifi in more places if you have an Xfinity login?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just another system of control. Temporarily embarrassed millionaires and all that. And once the desire for freedom has been transmuted into support for corporate authoritarianism, the money flows and the political hacks get to work shoring up the platform for the sponsors. I don't think 'libertarian' has to be synonymous with 'anarchist', but US libertarianism desperately needs an analog of anarchism-without-adj…
If you made a Venn diagram of self-proclaimed libertarian’s beliefs, the center would be empty. That is the practical definition of libertarian in today’s world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, the Peter Thiel school of thought. But people like that tend to not stay libertarian in any meaningful sense for long; to quote Thiel himself, "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible". That's how you get neo-reactionaries, basically.
You only get neo-reactionaries out of people that define their freedom as including their abilities to coerce others, and then get frustrated that said "freedom" is being impinged. They think they're morally right because they've defined away the coercion. Personally, around the time the whole Unqualified Reservations / NRx thing was starting up, I considered myself a libertarian with more rightist sympathies. Readin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You only get neo-reactionaries out of people that define their freedom as including their abilities to coerce others, and then get frustrated that said "freedom" is being impinged. They think they're morally right because they've defined away the coercion. Personally, around the time the whole Unqualified Reservations / NRx thing was starting up, I considered myself a libertarian with more rightist sympathies. Readin…
The problem with right libertarianism, IMO, is that private property rights (as opposed to personal property / "right to that which you're using") broadly necessitate coercion. The notion of abstract ownership of, say, a piece of land that you have never even visited in your life and that you do not currently occupy - which is necessary to e.g. lease it to someone for actually to live on it or otherwise do something…
Doesn't that still require your definition of coercion to prevent my neighbor from using it for what he wants? Or to prevent a new party moving in and setting up their own shelter there?
To me, the right libertarian conception of property rights is not the problem per se. It's when that is taken as an axiomatic framework and claimed to justify all the emergent behavior that happens on top of it.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have no doubt if they could get away with it they would haha. Many providers did roll out zero rating programs. This isn't a hypothetical, this is the case now and it's not happened. The reason is because of public backlash which is a market effect.
It had nothing to do with market effects. Some states and even quite a few local governments made their own net neutrality laws once the Trump admin nixed it federally. Complying with NN laws in some places but not others would have been way too complicated, so they just let it be. NN being saved by consumer backlash doesn't really make sense in the US, anyway, where many (most?) people only have one or two choices f…
If that's the case, which I doubt it is, it's not like it's expensive to charge some customers more money and not others, no need for FCC regulation then, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It feels like everyone has short memories. Net neutrality abuse did indeed happen, a few notable incidents, — Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile slowed down YouTube + Netflix traffic. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-a... — Verizon throttles so much that the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s ability to provide emergency services during the California wildfires. "The fire department experienced s…
> — Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile slowed down YouTube + Netflix traffic. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-a ... They still do... Get on AT&T and hist fast.com You are pegged at 4Mbps
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 (!).…
It feels like everyone has short memories. Net neutrality abuse did indeed happen, a few notable incidents, — Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile slowed down YouTube + Netflix traffic. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-a... — Verizon throttles so much that the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s ability to provide emergency services during the California wildfires. "The fire department experienced s…
Data throttling during heavy load wont violate NN either.
And cell phone networks have long throttled video data connections even during NN. Not much of an issue nowadays because of robust networks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes that is just the "FCC FACT SHEET" as it says in the top title of the document. It is not the actual rule/action. It is also the exact same link that the poster just above me already gave.
>Yes that is just the "FCC FACT SHEET" as it says in the top title of the document. It is not the actual rule/action. It is also the exact same link that the poster just above me already gave. No. The first page is the "fact sheet." The other 693 pages is the rule-making document. Or are you unable to read past the first line of the first page?
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I did read a very thorough sample of the document. When I'm trying to find an actual "order" / "rule" / whatever, I'd be drawn to something like
> V. "REPORT AND ORDER: OPEN INTERNET RULES"
on page 264 and figure that might be the order. But all throughout that section it constantly has paragraphs that just contain language that obviously isn't an order / ruling / regulation, like on page 265:
> The Internet serves as a cornerstone for free expression, fostering a diverse and inclusive digital space where individuals can share ideas, opinions, and information without undue influence or interference. It promotes the exchange of diverse perspectives, ultimately enriching society by exposing individuals to a wide range of thoughts and experiences. As the Supreme Court noted in 1997, the Internet enables any person to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.”
That's not a rule, that's just talking about stuff in general. When I read the FTC document about non-compete, it has hundred of pages like this, but then at the end of the document it has a clear section of legalese that contains the actual technical content of the rule. This document from the FCC does not have any section like that -- every section is mostly non-binding descriptive language, and I'm having trouble figuring out what, precisely, this ruling / order enacts, because this document spends most of its time justifying the action rather than actually enacting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not going to pay 50 bucks to read that article, but if the term "populist anger" is used there in its common meaning, it's not about "other side" at all. It's mainly about people feeling supposedly representative government has abandoned any pretense of representing the population and their interests, and that understandably makes some people feel bad about it. It's not about pissing off some imaginary opponent, it's…
You're trying to say that policy and representation is the broad concern. The studies say otherwise. The whole of government is one part of the elite that conservative America wants to tear down. Do you think "owning the liberals" is a completely made up thing? How do you think it compares to the phrase "owning the conservatives", a phrase nobody uses nor seemingly aspires to?
> Do you think "owning the liberals" is a completely made up thing
No, I don't think it's completely made up. I think it's by far not the main driver, and claiming like everything the right does, or even most significant driver for what the right does is this is nonsense.
> "owning the conservatives", a phrase nobody uses nor seemingly aspires to
A brief search (not using Google since their results are garbage now) provides ample proof otherwise. But my point is that spite in not a primary motivation neither for the right nor for the left. Since the right is by its nature more reactionary (I don't use it here as pejorative but as a description of action caused by another action), their actions can looks spiteful in more cases, but that's not the primary motivation, whatever the forum trolls say. For the trolls, on both sides, yes, this is a primary motivation, sure, and they obviously exist, but they are not the main or the only force by far.