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

An Open Letter to the FCC

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 222 posts

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#161

Post by null000 »

paul7986 wrote: post #153
hysan wrote: post #69

I'm one of the people who has had part of their identity used to submit false comments. Found out when a journalist emailed me asking me to do a survey and some additional comments months ago. I proceeded to sign up for an API key[1] to confirm what was being claimed and turns out, it was true. The API is a bit limited, but I was also able to do searches using the falsely submitted comment to find others like it as w…

I believe that there are a lot of fake comments(possibly threads) appearing on Hacker News. I'm sure on Reddit and everywhere on the Internet that influences peoples' oomph to stand up for something like Net Neutrality. I mean why in the world in 2017 are we so apathetic about something so important? We were up in arms about in 2013 and stopped SOPA then!!!

Apathetic? Have you seen Reddit today or yesterday? The top post in 90% of subreddits are pro-net-neutrality posts, even where it makes no sense. I can't think of a time when that much of a stink was made, including SOPA.

The reason it's not working this time around is because you have an FCC chair whose not really interested in what the public thinks - you're not his constituents, and you're not the constituents of the people who put him in power.

Note that the constituents of Republicans are honestly mostly wealthy donors by this point - I doubt they care too much what their voters think beyond ensuring that they don't screw them over directly (e.g. via increased taxes or decreased entitlements)

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#162

Post by npsimons »

inetknght wrote: post #90
ordinaryperson wrote: post #7

The revocation of the Net Neutrality rules became a foregone conclusion once Donald Trump was elected. The sad reality is there's not much we, Eric Schneidermann or anyone else can do about it. There are 5 FCC commissioners but only 3 may be of the same party. Ajit Pai, Brendan Carr and Michael O'Rielly are locks to vote in favor, so it will pass, 3-2. At this point the best thing people can do is prepare to vote in…

> The sad reality is there's not much we, Eric Schneidermann or anyone else can do about it. If Ajit Pai continues to obstruct investigations, I would consider it obstruction of justice. That's something that an Attorney General should seriously consider in the current light.

> If Ajit Pai continues to obstruct investigations, I would consider it obstruction of justice. That's something that an Attorney General should seriously consider in the current light.

My recurring thought as I read the fine article: "you're an attorney general, a lawyer who has asked politely, multiple times and been ignored; why TF haven't you filed for a subpoena yet?"

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#163

Post by [deleted] »

paul7986 wrote: post #154
paul7986 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that there are a lot of fake comments(possibly threads) appearing on Hacker News. I'm sure on Reddit and everywhere on the Internet that influences peoples' oomph to stand up for something like Net Neutrality. I mean why in the world in 2017 are we so apathetic about something so important? We were up in arms about in 2013 and stopped SOPA then!!!

We need some type of identifying online tool like that blockchain ID tool to proliferate. It would ensure who you say you are on the Internet. YOu could still comment anonymously, but what you say anonymously wouldn't hold as much weight vs. when you use your real verified identity!

[deleted]

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#164

Post by null000 »

jessaustin wrote: post #155
jedberg wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what the judicial branch is for. They have to pass the crappy rules first so that someone who was harmed can sue them. Congress can stop them now, and the judicial can stop them after the fact. Congress is corrupt, but thus far the judicial is not.

The corruption of the judicial branch is more obvious to its victims than it is to the average citizen, but it does quite a bit more direct harm than Congress does. For example, the courts that fund their municipalities on the backs of the poor, all the shady arrangements with the incarceration industry, the seemingly deliberate destruction of families and children perpetrated by the divorce courts, the horrific exce…

Pretty sure the most of what you're talking about is the executive branch. They're in charge of enforcing the rules - e.g. deciding who to prosecute for drug crimes and which prisons to put them in to serve their term.

Likewise, the executive branch is the one that decides to go after offenders based on profitability over public good (although you could also lay that on the legislative branch for allowing the executive to fund itself using fines in the first place).

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#165

Post by [deleted] »

npsimons wrote: post #159
epistasis wrote: post #5

It's been really interesting to see the interplay between State Attorneys General and the federal executive branch over the past decade. I don't know enough legal history to know if this contention is new or has always happened. But the contrast between what happened with regulation of carbon and coal is fairly striking. The federal judicial brach said that it had to be regulated in order to meet the laws that the le…

> This type of regulation, where particular parties are favored, rather than particular principles, is madness. It's plutocracy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy ), plain and simple. Some have been pointing out things like this and calling it plutocracy for a long time, but until now it wasn't so blatantly obvious.

[deleted]

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#166

Post by erikpukinskis »

dragonwriter wrote: post #145
creaghpatr wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't mutually exclusive of course. Obviously both parties are going to fight at all levels but in recent history GOP controls far more of state governments than Democrats so they strategically favor states rights. My original point is still that they haven't shifted away from that strategic view of states rights since the election because they still hold those advantages. When Democrats dominate at state level…

> Obviously both parties are going to fight at all levels but in recent history GOP controls far more of state governments than Democrats so they strategically favor states rights. No, they tactically see success on certain issues operating at the state level; they don't, strategically or otherwise support states rights (that is, any consistent protected domains where states are free to act as they will without feder…

Whenever I see one of these “parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it” I wonder if it would be a good keystone for a new moderate party, built on consensus.

The idea being, taking a principled stance on the aspects of those issues on which there is consensus, while not taking a stance on the part which does not have agreement, would expose the other parties as frauds and give you a rhetorical advantage over them.

I wonder if states rights is one of those issues.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#167

Post by erikpukinskis »

angersock wrote: post #14
0xB31B1B wrote: post #8

More and more we see state agencies standing up to regime change in Washington (ex: CA and environmental regulations). Regardless of your personal politics, I wonder how this dynamic will affect democracy in the US.

The issue of federalism is not the settled matter that most people seem to be thinking it is.

Which way do you think most people think it has settled on?

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#168

Post by dragonwriter »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #166
dragonwriter wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously both parties are going to fight at all levels but in recent history GOP controls far more of state governments than Democrats so they strategically favor states rights. No, they tactically see success on certain issues operating at the state level; they don't, strategically or otherwise support states rights (that is, any consistent protected domains where states are free to act as they will without feder…

Whenever I see one of these “parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it” I wonder if it would be a good keystone for a new moderate party, built on consensus. The idea being, taking a principled stance on the aspects of those issues on which there is consensus, while not taking a stance on the part which does not have agreement, would expose the other parties as frauds and give you a rh…

> Whenever I see one of these “parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it”

The parties don't purport to disagree on the issue; one party paints it as a point of disagreement, but even that is just using the term as a coded reference to a real disagreement on race policy, not a reference to a disagreement on the policy suggested by what the words otherwise seem to mean.

> I wonder if states rights is one of those issues.

“States rights” isn't, because it's not an actual issue, it's a slogan for an issue people don't like to directly describe.

Now, you could come up with a model of a coherent set of protected zones of state authority and try to organize a movement around them, but that's not an existing ideology that is getting lip service but no actual support, it would be a whole new issue.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#169

Post by cookiecaper »

thechao wrote: post #146
alexanderstears wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oligopoly? Most people seem to be served by a monopoly.

My HOA requires me to use TWC, or get a fine which can lead to a lien. TWC doesn’t even exist in my part of Texas: it’s spectrum or ATT.

Spectrum is the result of a merger that subsumed TWC, for what it's worth. Your HOA just needs to update its paperwork. I'm sure a judge would see things your way if someone actually pursued you for failing to use a company that doesn't exist anymore.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#170

Post by neuronexmachina »

creaghpatr wrote: post #23
ordinaryperson wrote: post #7

The revocation of the Net Neutrality rules became a foregone conclusion once Donald Trump was elected. The sad reality is there's not much we, Eric Schneidermann or anyone else can do about it. There are 5 FCC commissioners but only 3 may be of the same party. Ajit Pai, Brendan Carr and Michael O'Rielly are locks to vote in favor, so it will pass, 3-2. At this point the best thing people can do is prepare to vote in…

Per Trump exec order, he can't lobby for at least 2 years and most likely 5 depending on his tenure. So it's not a profitable move for him, taking this position.

He'll probably just issue waivers for that, similar to the ones he issued earlier this year to allow lobbyists and corporate lawyers to work in his Administration. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/336195-two-...

> The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is reportedly set to release copies of roughly two dozen ethics waivers for federal officials next week, showing which officials are focusing on issues that they worked on in their private sector jobs.

> The waivers are in addition to the ones the Trump administration released this week, The Wall Street Journal reports. The White House released those ethics pledge waivers Wednesday, exempting at least a dozen White House officials.

Post reply on HN