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

161–170 of 248 posts

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#161

Post by CalChris »

bmelton wrote: post #143
CalChris wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nice try, but regulation in the context of mstodd's post (regulation takes away freedom) is:

  the action or process of regulating or being regulated
It's a gerund of regulate.

Your misreading would allow that regulation(s) take away freedom but laws and Constitutional Amendments don't. And that's just gibberish.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#162

Post by throwaway729 »

13years wrote: post #134
throwaway729 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The senate and modern house play that role. As it stands, we have minority rule in nearly every branch of federal government.

The article I linked covered this topic.

The FEE argument, if assumed to be self-consistent, works even better as an argument against a status quo that systematically favors a minority party over a (popular) majority party.

If the goal is balancing power between political parties, then the presidency should certainly be a popular vote or else the house and senate should be substantially reformed.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#163

Post by RCortex »

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?

You're ignoring the Citizens United decision, we don't have real figures on campaign spending with superpacs and third party campaign vehicles. Additionally no one is taking into account the resources the Russian government poured into the Trump campaign, their state news channel was repeating the republican/trump message ad verbatim. [1]

[1] http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/underst...

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#164

Post by hristov »

crdoconnor wrote: post #66
hristov wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is completely normal and accepted for various agencies to make rules within the confines of the laws that have empowered them. It is in fact necessary considering how complex our society is. Congress cannot possibly control everything. If congress has power to pass certain laws, they have power to relegate some of such authority to a governing body. If the FCC's rules are in accordance with the laws that empowered…

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/53260835850816716... "Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media."

He tweeted that four days after the election. Again, I was correct to say that removing net neutrality was not part of his election platform.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#165

Post by magicalist »

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.

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

But they do ignore the rest. How much campaigning was done in rural Texas or California? Or Wyoming or Montana for that matter?

It's silly to pretend that Michigan and Florida somehow represent the country folk of America.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#166

Post by bmelton »

CalChris wrote: post #161
bmelton wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nice try, but regulation in the context of mstodd's post ( regulation takes away freedom ) is: the action or process of regulating or being regulated It's a gerund of regulate . Your misreading would allow that regulation(s) take away freedom but laws and Constitutional Amendments don't. And that's just gibberish.

To put a more fine point on it, generally speaking, an action that is subject to an adversarial system, is debated upon in plain view, is subject to pressure by consistuents, and is voted upon by the body populace, especially where the bar is as high as a constitutional amendment, tends to be less restrictive than a rule imposed by a regulatory agency that carries the effective force of law. Naturally, there are exceptions to every rule, but the trend tends to be pretty well defined.

But, if your assertion is that they're the same thing now, then that's cool too, I guess.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#167

Post by puranjay »

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…

In the NYT interview, he pretty much went back on everything he said during the elections.

Prosecute Hillary? "We have to move forward"

Torture works? "Well, General Madd Dogg Mattis thinks its not very important"

Climate change? "I have an open mind about it"

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but what Trump could do is pretty much up in the air at the moment

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#168

Post by puranjay »

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…

I don't know why people harp on the 2 million popular votes thing.

If that was the goal, that's what the candidates would have campaigned for.

But the goal was 270 electoral votes, so that's what the candidates campaigned for.

This is like a losing soccer team saying that they won more free kicks, so they should get to win, not the team that scored more goals

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#169

Post by throwaway729 »

puranjay wrote: post #168
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…

I don't know why people harp on the 2 million popular votes thing. If that was the goal, that's what the candidates would have campaigned for. But the goal was 270 electoral votes, so that's what the candidates campaigned for. This is like a losing soccer team saying that they won more free kicks, so they should get to win, not the team that scored more goals

> If that was the goal, that's what the candidates would have campaigned for.

And I think that would've been a good thing. Do you disagree?

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#170

Post by Frondo »

xahrepap wrote: post #64
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 is anti-democratic by design . Founding fathers didn't want a democratic election for presidents. I think a good example of what the electoral college is: you have a sports tournament. The winner isn't the person who gets the most points in all the games. It's the person who wins the most games.

You know what, though? This isn't their world any more, it's ours.

One of the mistakes they made that we're all still suffering from was in how difficult it is in practice to amend the US constitution. Even the late great Antonin Scalia felt this way--in some interview he gave somewhere, he said that, if given a magic wand and the ability to change the constitution, he'd simply make it easier to amend.

Happily, there are people working on the electoral college problem, e.g. http://nationalpopularvote.com.

(I am, by the way, one of those coastal liberals who's pretty frustrated at how much less my vote matters than the vote of some dude in Wyoming.)

Post reply on HN