U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#101

Post by coldpie » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 3:50 PM UTC

uoaei wrote: post #98

coldpie wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For everyone else, their votes never counted. Yes they did. Sure, it was one vote out of three hundred million, but so was every one else's.

The above poster is referring to the lopsided representation of voters due to the electoral college and the degree of contestedness of particular states. For instance, I can be comfortable not voting in California because it is so overwhelmingly blue that, in effect, my vote "didn't count". The same is not true of many midwestern states, where the two major parties are in a dead heat.

Only one office uses the electoral college. There are a whole lot more offices than that one. Your point is also obviously nonsense on its face: if no one voted, then the results would be different. So surely some votes must count. Do no votes count unless the result is N vs N+1?

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#102

Post by wfo » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 4:42 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #101

uoaei wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The above poster is referring to the lopsided representation of voters due to the electoral college and the degree of contestedness of particular states. For instance, I can be comfortable not voting in California because it is so overwhelmingly blue that, in effect, my vote "didn't count". The same is not true of many midwestern states, where the two major parties are in a dead heat.

Only one office uses the electoral college. There are a whole lot more offices than that one. Your point is also obviously nonsense on its face: if no one voted, then the results would be different. So surely some votes must count. Do no votes count unless the result is N vs N+1?

You are correct that other offices matter and do not use the electoral college but the one office that does use it is exactly the one that we are discussing in this thread (recall, it began with "thanks Jill Stein voters").

It's also the case that many other offices are intentionally gerrymandered (US House, state congress) to ensure voters' choices do not matter, whereas the presidency is gerrymandered by happenstance due to a compromise made centuries ago that is no longer relevant.

And yes, opposition votes in deep red states or blue states are counted as cute protest votes much in the way votes for "Mickey Mouse" or "George Washington" or "Jill Stein" are. Votes in line with the state past 50% + 1 simply do not effect the final total or outcome of the election at all, they are thrown away, and what's important is that they never could assuming, e.g. California going blue is a foregone conclusion. Democrats have to do the bare minimum and show up to win California, and Republicans with Alabama, but voting for president doesn't really mean much in those states. We have a scheme were elections are extremely close most of the time, but as far as your vote is concerned it is with overwhelming probability literally thrown away and not counted towards that total. It essentially guarantees voter apathy.

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#103

Post by intended » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 4:53 PM UTC

akinalci wrote: post #58

aoeu345 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If something like this existed, with the source code on Github with a detailed contributing.md document, I would spend time on it. We have great tools available to do this and it is a worthy cause.

Best case scenario, it gains attention. Worst case scenario, it gains attention and I drive my car into a tree one night or spontaneously OD.

Worst case scenario, like every tool made to deal with humans on the internet - you live long enough to see it turn against you.

Make no tool you wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of.

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#104

Post by intended » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 5:00 PM UTC

pubby wrote: post #46

LoonyBalloony wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electoral reform. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erph1L_XwVQ

None of those ideas solve the problem of campaign financing being legalized bribery, the problem of politicians lying and flip-flopping to gain votes, or the problem of wealth, power, and the establishment deciding who can't win by manipulating the press. The only system I know of that avoids these problems is to hold randomized lotteries for government positions and skip the election process entirely.

You want to solve your country's problems ?

Simples steps, clearly communicable steps, and one step at a time.

Start by Reducing the impact of money on elections. Politicians themselves will thank you.

The ability to flog oneself on the airwaves, to call and reach out to people and keep targeting newer and newer potential voters. These abilities force politicians into a monetary arms race.

The easiest thing here is funding, and curtailing it.

The issues are creative ways to get on the air without resorting to using money.

But one step at a time.

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#105

Post by intended » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 5:04 PM UTC

coldcode wrote: post #80

Someday we will look back fondly on the days when we could read Hacker News without buying the Hacker Channel Group.

No, no you won't.

Hacker channels will be free. Most of the people who would be upset by this will be mollified, or sidelined.

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#106

Post by alistairSH » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 6:53 PM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #70

seanp2k2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also amazing how little it costs to buy them. It's on the order of a hundred thousand dollars. Check out campaign contributions and you'll see. It needs to be at least 10-100x more expensive to really make a difference. It'd be hilarious / depressing is politicians started colluding to squeeze companies for orders of magnitude more in bribes (sorry, "campaign contributions").

As a total outsider - it's amazing that a place as huge as the US has a two-party system. splitting everything into one camp or the other makes for groupings that don't always work.

A two-party system is the expected result of plurality rule (which the US uses almost exclusively for national elections).[1]

1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#107

Post by graycat » Sat, Apr 08, 2017, 2:05 AM UTC

narrowrail wrote: post #55

graycat wrote: post #39

IIRC a well thought out idea has long been to have privacy, in various forms, handled by the FTC. Then the recent change for the FCC was to go ahead and get the FCC out of privacy and move, hand over, transfer what the FCC was doing on privacy to the FTC. I have read nothing and have no idea what the consequences will be for privacy. E.g., maybe the FTC will, net, give us better regulation of privacy or maybe worse.

My understanding is that once these companies were deemed common carriers, the FTC was prevented from regulating them at all. State attorneys general will still be able to prosecute civil cases where harm can be shown, however.

Interesting. What I read didn't mention the common carrier issue and consequences.

Gee, again we could use better written news.

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#108

Post by dang » Sat, Apr 08, 2017, 2:48 AM UTC

SamLevin88 wrote: post #83

dang wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't post inflamed political rants here. If you have a substantive point to make, please make it thoughtfully. Otherwise please don't comment here.

How is that not relevant, though? Are you the comment police or something?

I am, unfortunately.

Relevance isn't the only concern. When you send a message you probably don't want a response, however relevant, blasted through your window by bazooka.