Live data from Hacker News

Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

washingtonpost.com

241–248 of 248 posts

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#241
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is, places mostly controlled by Republicans will be bitten the most by weaker FCC. They are already plagued by lazy and sleepy monopolists and corrupted local laws written by them that prevent municipal networks and result in overpriced and underpowered Internet. Without FCC it will only get worse. So those who chose that will taste their own medicine.

I thought rich people were given exceptional QoS so they don't complain about it to the media. Not to mention: they're rich; They don't really care how much their internet costs so long as it works.

If rich people live in the area with bad Internet, there isn't much they can do about it (except moving to a different place). And today practically everyone cares, both rich and poor. Internet is an essential utility.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#242

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. Utter nonsense. Under a popular vote-based system, each person in a non-coastal state would have exactly as much say as each person in a coastal state. To the extent that coastal areas might have more sway as a whole because they…

No, the point of the United States is to unite the states into a manageable single government. It is not to provide a direct action democracy to the people. We give states a base number of votes for being a state,2 , then add them based on population. This means that smaller states get a boost in power vis a vis larger ones but that larger states still matter more. This is not a bad thing. States provide the basic bl…

> No, the point of the United States is to unite the states into a manageable single government. It is not to provide a direct action democracy to the people.

Right, obviously this was the point at the time of the Constitution's creation, and it made sense at that time because people thought of themselves more as citizens of their states than of their country. But that's no longer true, and hasn't been for a long time.

> This means that smaller states get a boost in power vis a vis larger ones but that larger states still matter more. This is not a bad thing.

Again, let me show you how absurd this is:

"This means that religious minorities get a boost in power vis a vis larger ones but that larger religions still matter more. This is not a bad thing."

"This means that racial minorities get a boos in power vis a vis white people but that white people still matter more. This is not a bad thing."

Why is it a good thing for geographic minorities to get extra voting power, but not minorities for other dimensions?

> States provide the basic block upon which Government in the US rests. It is in our interests to provide states with more equal power at a national level than population would dictate.

1. The Senate still does that anyway. 2. Why is that advantageous in this particular context?

> If you pass a constitutional amendment to adjust voting laws you can enable exactly whatever you like though, for any of your more hyperbolic suggestions you would need to override many of the existing protections as well but if you wanted to be an asshole along with the rest of america there is no reason we could not do so using our existing legal framework.

You don't even need a constitutional amendment actually, the interstate compact is sufficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

Of course it's unlikely Republicans will back this since the current setup works to their advantage.

> The argument is not about rural versus urban but about the relative power of small versus large states.

Yes, but in practice states with larger populations tend to be more urbanized and states with small populations tend to be more rural.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#243

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. Utter nonsense. Under a popular vote-based system, each person in a non-coastal state would have exactly as much say as each person in a coastal state. To the extent that coastal areas might have more sway as a whole because they…

> To the extent that coastal areas might have more sway as a whole because they have more people, isn't that the whole point of democracy? But the United States was never intended to be a popular democracy. In their wisdom the Founding Fathers acknowledged the problems inherent in democracy (it devolves too easily into two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner). Instead, they created a federal republic, in wh…

Yes, I'm aware of how things were at the time of the Constitution's creation. But things have changed; people no longer thing of themselves as Virginians first, and Americans second. As America has industrialized and developed, that the nation has become more tightly-knit and less an aggregation of states has been inevitable.

> Small, local governments have many advantages: it's easier for ordinary people to participate in and influence them, and they're harder for big money to control. Local governments listen more closely to their constituencies and their decisions more accurately reflect what their communities want.

Local governments also have certain disadvantages: just look at the housing and transportation situation in the SF bay area. Excessive fragmentation has resulted in horrible policies, with each community unwilling to compromise or do what makes sense for the area as a whole. It's basically tragedy of the commons.

> While some of the Founders were fonder of a strong central government than others, none of them would have supported the degree of centralization we have today.

Who cares? The country is radically different than the primarily agrarian society they had, what worked then won't work now.

The founders would also be horrified at our views on sex and gender, just because they were smart men for their time doesn't mean we need to follow their beliefs for all time.

> The antidote is a return to the true meaning of the 10th amendment. A more local government which is influenced and participated in directly by the people it governs. A world where your vote is one of hundreds or thousands, not hundreds of millions, and genuinely does count.

This doesn't happen because it's ineffective, same reason that -- current moves towards populism/nationalism notwithstanding -- there's a long-term trend towards more integration and fewer trade barriers as nations become more developed.

More fragmentation among local governments means powers are closer to individual citizens, yes, but that also means more government overhead: you're losing economies of scale. For example, imagine how well the interstate highway system would work if there were no real federal government or even state governments, and you just had hundreds or thousands of cities each managing little pieces of it.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#244
post #188
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Completely disagree. It keeps us from screwing it up. Don't mess with something that isn't broken. And no, it isn't broken. There's a reason the US government is one of the oldest in the world. They got quite a few things right from the start.

For a lot of folks, citizens, mind you, the status quo is screwed up, is broken. That those citizens live out their lives with effectively no way to seek redress, due to a design decision made centuries ago, seems unjust to me.

After all, it's a legal document, not a religious text.

There's also dodgy and ambiguous language that keeps causing arguments and problems, in part because it wasn't written super clearly to begin with, and in part because centuries have passed since the people wrote it.

(Some of my big ones: clarifying the 2nd amendment one way or the other, addressing abortion rights directly, and adding something to strengthen every citizen's access to voting, e.g. national voting holiday, felon enfranchisement, whatever.)

I'd make it easier to amend, and trust in my fellow citizens to do the right thing.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#245
post #244
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Completely disagree. It keeps us from screwing it up. Don't mess with something that isn't broken. And no, it isn't broken. There's a reason the US government is one of the oldest in the world. They got quite a few things right from the start.

For a lot of folks, citizens, mind you, the status quo is screwed up, is broken. That those citizens live out their lives with effectively no way to seek redress, due to a design decision made centuries ago, seems unjust to me. After all, it's a legal document, not a religious text. There's also dodgy and ambiguous language that keeps causing arguments and problems, in part because it wasn't written super clearly to…

> and trust in my fellow citizens to do the right thing

And there is your mistake. Our republic has endured precisely because full trust wasn't placed in the hands of the people, but rather the people were simply another check on the power of the government that was subdivided, distributed, and balanced.

There is a path for amending the constitution and it requires overwhelming consent, as it should.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#246
post #26
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…

> 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 it, then there is nothing wrong. Yes, and people who don't like these regulations have the power to vote politicians who would revoke this authority. Your argument is unlikely to convince anyone. Especially people who are concerned that…

If only we could make line-item choices with our vote...

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#247
post #245
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a lot of folks, citizens, mind you, the status quo is screwed up, is broken. That those citizens live out their lives with effectively no way to seek redress, due to a design decision made centuries ago, seems unjust to me. After all, it's a legal document, not a religious text. There's also dodgy and ambiguous language that keeps causing arguments and problems, in part because it wasn't written super clearly to…

> and trust in my fellow citizens to do the right thing And there is your mistake. Our republic has endured precisely because full trust wasn't placed in the hands of the people, but rather the people were simply another check on the power of the government that was subdivided, distributed, and balanced. There is a path for amending the constitution and it requires overwhelming consent, as it should.

I don't believe that I am mistaken in trusting my fellow citizens with the democratic principle of self-governance.

For lots of people, they're not happy, the system doesn't work for them and they have no redress. Telling them it's for their own good? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#248
post #247
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and trust in my fellow citizens to do the right thing And there is your mistake. Our republic has endured precisely because full trust wasn't placed in the hands of the people, but rather the people were simply another check on the power of the government that was subdivided, distributed, and balanced. There is a path for amending the constitution and it requires overwhelming consent, as it should.

I don't believe that I am mistaken in trusting my fellow citizens with the democratic principle of self-governance. For lots of people, they're not happy, the system doesn't work for them and they have no redress. Telling them it's for their own good? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

> For lots of people, they're not happy, the system doesn't work for them and they have no redress.

There are always people who are unhappy. There is no system which will make everyone happy all of the time.

However, if you give the keys to the populace at large with unlimited power, you'll have tyranny of the majority and then you'll have bigger problems to chew on.

Do I really need to cite the most recent election as evidence? Democracy will always lean towards populism. Its only use is as a check on government.

Post reply on HN