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

231–240 of 248 posts

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#231

Post by mcv »

13years wrote: post #61
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…

>That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. Exactly, and it is supposed to be. We are a republic and not a democracy. The founders strongly opposed democracy. One of the reasons being that minorities would have no representation if your government is by majority rule only.

> We are a republic and not a democracy.

This is such an awful argument. North Korea is a republic and not a democracy. China is a republic and not a democracy. Denmark is a monarchy and a democracy. Why would you want your country to be an undemocratic republic when you could be a democratic republic?

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#232

Post by mcv »

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…

The name is exactly the thing that distinguishes monarchies from republics. Modern monarchies are democracies, as are modern republics, though some monarchies and many republics in the world are still undemocratic.

Well, I would hope the move is towards more democracy, but it seems people everywhere are eager to vote against democratic freedoms these days.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#233

Post by sctb »

nbb wrote: post #32
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.

Rabble rabble government bad rabble rabble.

We asked you to stop posting like this, so we've banned the account. We're happy to unban accounts if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll post civilly and substantively in the future.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#234

Post by cmurf »

nickff wrote: post #119
Daishiman wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to hear a single argument that stems from that philosophical basis that does not turn out to be suspiciously aligned with corporate interests.

I could say the same of opposing viewpoints being aligned with statist (or union) interests.

No those viewpoints can be traced back to old school liberalism where power comes from the individual, and individual citizens delegate a revocable portion of that power to form a government to do things on their behalf. And in this case it's competition law (anti-trust), and consumer protection.

If you want to argue Liberalism as an ideology has a component of statism attached, fine, but so does Conservatism. From Conservatism we got the 1st and 2nd constituions, and Liberalism became the more dominant of the two ideologies since the 14th amendment (and I'd say right now we might be looking at a regression but a. that's biased, and b. it's unproven, that part will take a while).

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#235

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bmelton wrote: post #195
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory they could also fail because they're wrong about something else , but whose problem is that? Either they can figure out how to have competition without regulation, or they can't and we need network neutrality.

Not trying to get involved in the debate around net neutrality, but you'd have to have criteria around what is success and what is failure. Depending on how you measure it, there are very few government programs that couldn't be simultaneously cast as either a success or failure depending on which criteria were chosen after the fact. Clearly, those in favor will point out its positives and discard its negatives, and…

I can actually give you a pretty good definition if you want one.

Competition sufficient so that no last mile ISP has enough market power to charge transit or content providers for access to their customers. That's the exact minimum amount of competition necessary so that you don't need network neutrality regulations -- enough so that the market does the job for you.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#236

Post by qb45 »

paradite wrote: post #190
transfire wrote: post #11

Can't wait to buy those "cheap" bundled Internet packages. Wow! Look at everything you'll get. http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1567010/original.jpg

I am curious about the source of this image, care to share?

Google search on HP domain yields this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/losing-net-neutrali...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/net-neutrality-gone...

Which in turn credits this as the original source:

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/9yj1f/heres_a_new_scen...

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#237

Post by rounce »

grzm wrote: post #219
rounce wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I actually wrote a whole long post lamenting the users failure to read the post they were replying to. However, it seemed ridiculous, given that they couldn't even correctly contextualise the part of the post they were quoting. So I put in terms that couldn't easily be misconstrued. Then let them either see their error, or point it in a subsequent post if they really struggle.

Also, I didn't ask if they had read the article, I asked if they had read the very post they were quoting (to quote kinda implies that you read and understood). The article posted by the OP is irrelevant by this stage in this micro-discussion. If you had read the parent comments, you obviously wouldn't be playing HN rent-a-cop for nothing.

Likewise you'll also realize that the guideline simply refers to OP articles, and doesn't try and tell people how to conduct a reasonable conversation when one of the participants just decides to put words in the mouth of another.

Bloody busybody.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#238

Post by mzw_mzw »

magicalist wrote: post #165
mzw_mzw wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The proposed changes to using the popular vote would not increase the campaigning in Wyoming or Montana either.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#239

Post by dcposch »

xamuel wrote: post #57
dcposch wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 No. Everyone should have an equal say. That's what national popular vote ensures. Clinton got over 2m more votes than her opponent, but will not be President. That's not democracy. I completely agree with your point about limiting…

Not to endorse either candidate, but you're making a common mistake. If the election were a popular vote, the candidates would campaign for that. They'd focus more on big cities etc. There's no guarantee Clinton would have won the popular vote if that had been the case. Edit: If you're downvoting could you explain why?

I never said that the rule change would "guarantee" a Clinton win. I just said it would be more democratic.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#240

Post by curried_haskell »

13years wrote: post #61
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…

>That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. Exactly, and it is supposed to be. We are a republic and not a democracy. The founders strongly opposed democracy. One of the reasons being that minorities would have no representation if your government is by majority rule only.

I don't know how many times people need to be educated on this, but democracy is orthogonal to being a republic.

The USA is both a republic and a democracy. You could say, a democratic republic.

Post reply on HN