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

211–220 of 248 posts

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#211

Post by CalChris »

bmelton wrote: post #197
CalChris wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah bro, I was just saying that Regulation takes away freedom is simplistic libertarian drivel because it kinda just like is .

Is there nuance that can be added? Sure. Pretending one thing is the same as the other is not, in my opinion, a nuance that furthers the discussion. It's really, really hard to equivocate the 13th amendment to, say, the EPA rules overturned by Michigan v EPA, or any of the other thousands of regulations imposed last year.

The 13th Amendment ended slavery by regulating away the property rights of slaveholders and so I can understand that libertarians are a might bit peeved about this reduction in their freedom to own other human beings. I offer my condolences.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#212

Post by confounded »

sgnelson wrote: post #187
confounded wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The UK and Canada are monarchies, not republics.

It's a monarchy in name only. They're both constitutional monarchies which are really strictly parliamentary systems. The actual monarch is head of state, not head of government, and the Queen has almost nothing to do with the actual running of the Government, especially in Canada (and Australia, and so on). In reality, a parliamentary system such as the modern UK and Canada acts as a republic, despite what it's name…

Hey, I don't make the rules!

I disagree with little of the above, but I wonder how much of it is due to 'Liz 2 in particular. I can imagine a different monarch exerting a great deal more influence. They'd be perfectly able to do so. The UK's armed forces are loyal only to the monarch and not the government, for example.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#213

Post by gaius »

grzm wrote: post #205
gaius wrote: post #204

Ah, the Washington Post, who gleefully published everything Snowden gave them, then called for him to be jailed. What do they know about net-anything?

What does the Washington Post and Snowden have to do with them printing an article (not an editorial) on net neutrality?

It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom of course.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#214

Post by bmelton »

CalChris wrote: post #211
bmelton wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there nuance that can be added? Sure. Pretending one thing is the same as the other is not, in my opinion, a nuance that furthers the discussion. It's really, really hard to equivocate the 13th amendment to, say, the EPA rules overturned by Michigan v EPA, or any of the other thousands of regulations imposed last year.

The 13th Amendment ended slavery by regulating away the property rights of slaveholders and so I can understand that libertarians are a might bit peeved about this reduction in their freedom to own other human beings. I offer my condolences.

Pithy.

The obvious rebuttal being that "laws" allow for the military draft, which is also slavery, or jury duty, which is an admittedly much milder form of the same thing, or the internment of the Japanese, or the infinite detention in Guantanamo, but since you probably already know that libertarians wouldn't be on board with slavery in the first place and are just positing up strawman after strawman, I think it's fair to assume that your arguments aren't being made in good faith, so I'll leave you to it.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#215

Post by curiousgeorgio »

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…

> Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night?

Should that same philosophy apply globally? Should you be able to vote in a country where you don't live?

You may live in the United States, but if each state were a different country, wouldn't it make more sense that your vote carry more weight in your own country than others?

Obviously, we think of countries as being on a completely different level, but the Unites States was originally set up to be a group of states with a great deal of autonomy, united only by a relatively weak federal government. In that context, the president of the United States should be regarded as a president of the states, not a president of the people.

It certainly matters globally where you choose to lay your head down at night, just as it matters in which state you lay your head down at night, and that's by design. If you don't care for your state's laws, you should be able to find a state the matches your ideals without having to leave the country.

The president's power should therefore be removed by a layer of geographical abstraction from the people - it serves only to make limited decisions that affect all the states in a very limited way.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#216

Post by grzm »

gaius wrote: post #213
grzm wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the Washington Post and Snowden have to do with them printing an article (not an editorial) on net neutrality?

It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom of course.

I'm betraying a fundamental understanding of your point :)

Is this what you mean?

The Washington Post (along with the Guardian) was one of the first publishers of material leaked by Edward Snowden as part of its new reporting function. The Washington Post, as part of its editorial function, also published an editorial[0] arguing that Obama should not issue a pardon for Snowden. Therefore, the Washington Post cannot (or should not, or has no credibility to) publish an article on Trump and net neutrality as part of its new reporting function because it's position on issuing a pardon for Edward Snowden is inconsistent with freedom (of speech).

I'm not sure which freedom you're referring to. Freedom of speech or freedom of the press would be the likely ones, I think.

If that's not a fair summary of what you mean, please feel free to correct or expand.

[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesn...

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#217

Post by dandersh »

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"

The arrogance and entitlement of middle america is really getting to be too much. Now your votes should count more just "so you can have a say too".

Maybe you shouldn't have abandoned unions, maybe you shouldn't have abandoned the left, maybe you shouldn't have expected the GOP to place your interests first. It's been almost 50 years since "The Silent Majority" and apparently nothing's changed.

Maybe the problem isn't everyone else. Maybe the problem is you.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#218

Post by rounce »

cyphax wrote: post #206
mch82 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Electoral College was created for two reasons as a compromise so that all of the states would sign the Constitution: 1. To balance power between states that have slaves and states that do not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise 2. To provide a way for people with better information than the general public to choose the President [0]. Addressing #1, we thankfully no longer have slaves, but the ne…

> 2. To provide a way for people with better information than the general public to choose the President [0]. Heheh, so the people chose Clinton, but the "people with better information" chose Trump? That just doesn't sound right. ;)

Wut?

Did you even read the parent post?

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#219

Post by grzm »

rounce wrote: post #218
cyphax wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. To provide a way for people with better information than the general public to choose the President [0]. Heheh, so the people chose Clinton, but the "people with better information" chose Trump? That just doesn't sound right. ;)

Wut? Did you even read the parent post?

Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Add some useful information, or move on (possibly down voting if you can and are so inclined).

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#220

Post by deelowe »

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…

Exactly. Why don't we just all calm the hell down and wait until something actually happens before we start panicing. To be honest, I think the propaganda machine is just pissed that the establishment candidate lost and are doing their best to trach the public why this is bad.
Post reply on HN