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

141–150 of 248 posts

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#141

Post by throwaway729 »

13years wrote: post #135
throwaway729 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the individual states were essentially their own countries with individual governments and leadership The debate over the scope of the federal government dates back to before the end of the revolutionary war, and was a central topic of debate in the drafting and ratification process for the Constitution. Remember that our first attempt at forming a country erred toward a weaker federal government, and was more-or-l…

Those view points aren't without debate. https://fee.org/articles/the-accidental-genius-of-the-electo... https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/15/...

Respectfully, the first article does not refute a single statement in the post you're replying to, which was about the historical reason for the electoral college. It merely justifies the electoral college from first principles in a modern context. It even says as much in its title.

The second article also fails to refute anything I've said. A direct vote was ruled out because of slavery -- the article says nothing about that. Once a direct vote was was ruled out, Federalist 68 basically explains why you'd want a college over the competing alternatives.

But the key move is ruling out direct democracy, not preferring one among the N bad alternatives. And the article never explains why a direct vote would've been ruled out. It's painfully clear what the reason for doing so was.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#142

Post by Gaelan »

mzw_mzw wrote: post #116
noobermin wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, they would try to run up the numbers in big cities and large media markets, and ignore the rest.

But why? Besides from actual rallies, appearances, etc, which I doubt have a very significant effect on people's votes (people only go to the rallies of their preferred candidates), there is no reason to target people in big cities. Given that most campaigning happens online or through the media at this point, there is no reason to restrict yourself to geographical areas.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#143

Post by bmelton »

CalChris wrote: post #127
mstodd wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it bad for those things, especially freedom? Regulation takes away freedom, by definition. An ISP start-up offering services which discriminate traffic now can't exist, and therefore can't give consumers more options. This is why I'm against net neutrality. I also believe that even with NN, companies will do what they want if it's worth the risk of being caught.

Regulation takes away freedom is simplistic libertarian drivel. According to that malarkey the 13th Amendment took away the freedoms of slaveholders: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction

TIL that the 13th amendment is a regulation. It's ironic, since you're explaining to others in a post above this one the very difference between "laws" and "rules", so it's pretty clear that you understand the false equivalence you're making.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#144

Post by MereInterest »

theli0nheart wrote: post #99
throwaway729 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original purpose of the electoral college was NOT to provide disproportionate voice to non-populous states. In fact, the states backing the college were some of the most populous as long as you count slaves. Also, the founding fathers weren't all supporters of the electoral college. Appealing to their ultimate compromise is a strange argument, especially since the original political motivations have largely becom…

> The original purpose of the electoral college was NOT to provide disproportionate voice to non-populous states. In fact, the states backing the college were some of the most populous as long as you count slaves. This begs for a source. Where is it stated exactly what the purpose of the electoral college was, in the Founding Fathers' own words? Furthermore, you have to keep in mind that at the time the U.S. was foun…

>The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. - Federalist Papers, # 68, Alexander Hamilton

The electoral college was there to prevent demagogues. That way, if one person managed to convince the populace with empty rhetoric, there would still be a reasonable body to meet, to discuss, and to choose somebody else.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#145

Post by bmelton »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #100
jachee wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sell me on the argument against it? Arbitrary operator editorial ability seems like a dangerous and irresponsible thing.

> Sell me on the argument against it? There are three groups of people opposed to network neutrality. 1) People who don't like government regulation in general, 2) Telecoms lobbyists and 3) People who don't understand what network neutrality is. Obviously only the first are worth listening to, though the second are the loudest and the third are the most numerous. And the issue with listening to the first group is tha…

> And if they're wrong and they fail

Fair point, but worth noting that they could fail for many reasons that have nothing to do with your central thesis.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#146

Post by r7000 »

jamie_ca wrote: post #124
r7000 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the UK and Canada republics or democracies?

They're both, as is the US. They aren't pure democracies, though. http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

The UK and Canada are not republics. There's no need to clarify "pure democracy"as no one thinks any modern democratic country is a pure democracy. All modern democracies are representative democracies.

Since there is, more or less, no other type of democracy around when a colloquial English speaker says "democracy" they mean representative democracy. Everything else is a pointless annoying semantic game.

Representative democracy is a perfectly acceptable term. Trying to shoehorn monarchies into the term "republic" is absurd.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#147

Post by jMyles »

The question is (or at least, soon will be) not whether a Trump administration has any particular animus regarding net neutrality, but whether the government will even have sufficient power to substantially dictate the direction of the particulars of the internet at all.

And the answer is, with increasing clarity, "no."

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#148

Post by Animats »

Probably.

Trump has announced two appointments to the FCC, Jeffrey Eisenach and Mark Jamison.[1] Eisenach has a paper arguing that ISP's should not be subject to any antitrust regulation.[2] Mark Jameson wants to abolish the FCC.[3] "Telecommunications network providers and ISPs are rarely, if ever, monopolies", he's written.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/22/obama-net...

[2] https://www.aei.org/publication/broadband-competition-in-the...

[3] http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/do-we-need-the...

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#149

Post by lintiness »

phailhaus wrote: post #106
lintiness wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

uh, dunno ... maybe yield on dollars spent is indicative of, say, their ability to manage our tax dollars.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#150

Post by 13years »

throwaway729 wrote: post #141
13years wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those view points aren't without debate. https://fee.org/articles/the-accidental-genius-of-the-electo... https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/15/...

Respectfully, the first article does not refute a single statement in the post you're replying to, which was about the historical reason for the electoral college. It merely justifies the electoral college from first principles in a modern context. It even says as much in its title. The second article also fails to refute anything I've said. A direct vote was ruled out because of slavery -- the article says nothing a…

>A lot of founding fathers would've preferred a direct vote. See for example Anti Federalist 72. Using google you can also find quotes from Madison, for example, arguing that a direct vote would obviously be best.

Although true, this is true as a point in time statement. In the end, they were convinced of the alternative argument.

Post reply on HN