Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 248 posts

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#101

Post by daemonk »

logmeout wrote: post #79
seibelj wrote: post #35

This is an unpopular opinion here, but I think net neutrality is too absolutist. If a company wants to pay to have all the data of an app be free for their users, that's great in my opinion. I don't want ISP's to extort small players or artificially slow down anyone. But if a company wants their video streaming app to be zero-rated by paying all the data costs, that seems like a business decision to me. Some people w…

You can't make a logical case on a liberal site like HN for anything. It's not allowed by the liberal elitists. Liberal here defined not as true liberal but progressive (destructionist) liberal.

My comment is not related to the topic at all.

Don't you think that these terminology we call each other by (liberal/conservative..) is stifling constructive discussion?

I am sure there is a popular or objective definition of these labels. However, there is also so much misinformation that loads these terms.

Whenever someone starts a conversation by calling the other side a liberal or conservative, there is an automatic implicit assumption of their beliefs whether that is correct or not. The social baggage that comes with these terms are automatically placed on the other person.

I see this so much in real life and online discussions. It's just a shame that people are using these words as an antagonist rather than a heuristic.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#102

Post by mzw_mzw »

dcposch wrote: post #36
ci5er wrote: post #31

Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about all of the stuff that "Trump could do" until he gets around to doing it. He talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing... As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to…

> The lesson that a lot of anti-Trumpers appear to have taken away from this election is that the electoral college is bad because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too No. Everyone should have an equal say. That's what national popular vote ensures. Clinton got over 2m more votes than her opponent, but will not be President. That's not democracy. I completely agree with your point about limiting…

> Clinton got over 2m more votes than her opponent, but will not be President. That's not democracy.

I suppose it was kind of a rotten trick to not tell the Democrats about the Electoral College beforehand, yeah.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#103

Post by noobermin »

mzw_mzw wrote: post #96
throwaway729 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too I'm from the midwest and I still don't understand this sentiment. Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night? That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. It's not that people who don't live on the coasts shouldn't have a say. It's that if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes , then t…

> It's that if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes, then they should probably win the election. Except that in a universe where the President was selected by popular vote, the candidates would have campaigned differently anyway, so your point is completely moot.

That they would try to appeal to all Americans and not just a handful in a few states? I think that is a better system.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#104

Post by gweinberg »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #6
dogma1138 wrote: post #5

Will dismantling the legacy also include scaling back the drone and surveillance programmes? Or is Obama's legacy is only the good parts?

The reason the drone and surveillance programs didn't take a large part in election propaganda this past year is that violating individuals' rights has bipartisan support.

Well, no. It's one of those issues where the elected officials of both parties largely agree, and the voters of both parties largely agree, but the voters disagree with the officials.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#105

Post by 13years »

throwaway729 wrote: post #87
13years wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. Exactly, and it is supposed to be. We are a republic and not a democracy. The founders strongly opposed democracy. One of the reasons being that minorities would have no representation if your government is by majority rule only.

The college no longer provides for any of the purposes that motivated its creation. If we judge the college based upon the criteria that motivated its creation, then we inevitably reach the conclusion that the college should be abolished.

There is no reason to abolish it, unless you prefer majority rule.

However, if you want a true republic and protection against the problems of majority rule, then you might want to potentially change it, but not abolish it.

https://fee.org/articles/the-accidental-genius-of-the-electo...

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#106

Post by phailhaus »

lintiness wrote: post #49
throwaway729 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too I'm from the midwest and I still don't understand this sentiment. Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night? That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. It's not that people who don't live on the coasts shouldn't have a say. It's that if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes , then t…

"if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes, then they should probably win the election." what if she spent TWICE the money getting them?

Why is the amount of money spent relevant? At the end of the day, more individuals felt that Clinton should be their president.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#108

Post by r7000 »

13years wrote: post #61
throwaway729 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too I'm from the midwest and I still don't understand this sentiment. Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night? That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. It's not that people who don't live on the coasts shouldn't have a say. It's that if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes , then t…

>That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. Exactly, and it is supposed to be. We are a republic and not a democracy. The founders strongly opposed democracy. One of the reasons being that minorities would have no representation if your government is by majority rule only.

Are the UK and Canada republics or democracies?

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#109

Post by CalChris »

throwaway729 wrote: post #39
ci5er wrote: post #31

Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about all of the stuff that "Trump could do" until he gets around to doing it. He talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing... As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to…

> because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too I'm from the midwest and I still don't understand this sentiment. Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night? That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. It's not that people who don't live on the coasts shouldn't have a say. It's that if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes , then t…

> We already have the senate. The house also favors less populous states, even if not by design.

The Electoral College also favors less populous states.

  Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
  thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the
  whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the
  State may be entitled in the Congress
So Wyoming gets 3 electors for a population of 584,153 or 194717 per elector. California gets 55 for a population of 38.8M or 705454 per elector.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#110

Post by antientropic »

logmeout wrote: post #73
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is a democracy. It is also a constitutional republic. There's no conflict between the terms. The Heritage Foundation is smart enough to realise the EC favours Republicans and therefore the policies it promotes and so will spin anything to make that seems like a good idea, because the will of the people being enacted would work against their goals. Finally, and more a reply to the parent comment, even a popular…

The US is not a democracy it is a democratic republic.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. How is a "democratic republic" not also a democracy? (Unless you define "democracy" to mean something else than its usual meaning, which is not "direct democracy".)
Post reply on HN