301–310 of 534 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given this vote was split along party lines this smells of whataboutism.
Whataboutism is irrelevant. What matters is whether his assertion is true: are both parties' policies toward the Internet a problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
15 House Republicans voted against it: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml
They're the ones who brand new congress needs to be courting
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. The only way to stop Kang from ruining everything is to vote for Kodos instead.
Look up Duverger's law. Effectively, in a first past the post electoral system, any vote that isn't for the major party that most closely aligns with your views is a vote that supports the views least aligned with your preference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
I do see some listed counterexamples to the "law", and also a note about occasional upsets where the parties get completely rearranged.
If both major parties suck, how do I ask for an upset? Is it by fuming quietly and voting for the lesser of the two evils, or by saying "no, fuck you both"? Or does the fact that any upset probably won't happen this election mean that it's part of "the long run" where per Keynes we're all dead, and so it doesn't actually matter?
Do the major parties just ignore any non-major-party vote, or do they analyze it to tweak their platforms for next time? (And, is this consistent over time and space? I'm hearing that it seems to be the case in the US now, but in the same breath I'm hearing that that's a recent localized disaster.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couple of issues here: 1. The opposing party's opposing the ruling party is a natural process of government. It's the normal state of things. Your saying that it was "poor behavior" implies that it was an anomaly, that the Republicans did something wrong by not supporting everything Obama wanted to do, and that the minority party is supposed to accede to every demand of the ruling party, which would be absurd. 2. The…
Your comments that this isn't how the government was intended to work are spot on -- the founders did not want a two party system.
This, right here, is the consequence of the withdrawal from politics many geeks advocated very strongly in an earlier time. "Everything is corrupt, it doesn't matter"... turns out to only be a viable philosophy when things mostly work well enough . What we have in protections and freedoms were purchased through a ton of hard work by prior generations: the liberty to slack and think that it just works ok is a nice sid…
This whole discussion is disheartening. When I first heard about this is came to HN to get the facts and try to actually form an opinion, because honestly I can't figure out what the bill is supposed to change and how. Instead I find people pontificating along party lines like every comments section across the internet. Where's the analysis and insight? Where's the objectivity? I've come to expect more from this site…
1. I would like to see a bill introduced to the house that's similar to the European ePrivacy Act.
2. I would like a bill to go father in scope.
I believe a customer should own all their personal information.
A delete would permently delete your IP viewing history, and company servers would have to delete all information they have on you in their data bases completely--if you want. It will be completely your decision. No one could trace your IP address. Law enforcement will still have subpoena power, but the data will be gone. Of course, the credit agencies would be exempt, but will have more restrictions on what they can do with that information. Yes--every once in awhile, you might need to re-enter registration/financial information at a website, and certain companies would have to change their ways. Boo--Hoo.
3. Ip tracing, except in extreme cases, would be illegial. Yelp woudn't be happy, but so what. Google, and Bing would go insane, but the time has come. I wouldn't mind anonymous data mining. They would be required to share all annoymous information with with the public--not just "What's trending". IP tracing to individual address, and people would have severe restrictions. Just make it illegial? Maybe government would have the right to IP address history for research purposes, they would have to build their own data centers. (The data centers are alwready there?). Private industry, like Google, and FB have ruined their space at the table, at least in the United States.
4. Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. would spend more millions fighting this though. Oh--Google would be angry.
5. The time has come.
Before getting all spun up, I'd dig a little deeper on the issue than what the WaPo does in this piece. These regulations were only voted on late in 2016 and never went into effect. To do the regulations, the FCC reclassified the internet as basically ye olde telephone system, which then made it subject to their purview based on laws created in the 1930s. This is classic overreach. Congress never gave this authority…
So as it's going to be a flame war apparently I've deleted the comment. I'd just like to register my opinion that I don't see Washington Post is an objective, nor even a trustworthy source at this point. When they print something it's often worth looking deeper into I believe.
That's because you probably believe that the Illuminati or clockwork elves are real.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I realise this is a total straw man, but whenever I read Republicans vs Democrats I can't help but think about how utterly insane it is to have the opinions of 300 million Americans represented by TWO parties. Two. So Americans choose to agree with either EVERYTHING person A says, or EVERYTHING person B says. That's what it boils down to. And it freaks me out that in a day and age where we're so educated and "free",…
In the general. But you also have to look at the primaries. For instance, this year we had 22 major candidates running for president in the two major parties. And people like Trump and Sanders show that there is plenty of room for heterodox candidates to be successful.
For example, I've heard from a small but non-trivial number of swing supporters that they would have voted for Sanders, but instead voted for Trump. Ranked voting might have allowed them to vote Sanders > Trump > Hillary in 2016. Others may have preferred Rand Paul, or Gary Johnson, etc.
FPTP is directly responsible for our dichotomous and increasingly unstable political system. We need more choice at the ballot box.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
support the EFF Not to say that most of what EFF does isn't valuable, but this privacy exposure has been going on for over a year and a half already . Why didn't the EFF call attention to it until now?
What do you mean? They talk about this stuff all the time. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrali... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/network-neutrality-201... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/congress-contemplating... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/verizon-and-turn-break... etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're correct and I edited my comment. I suspect that that may just be a tactic to save face in vulnerable districts rather than a sincere desire to oppose the bill.
That's a good point. Are the Republicans who voted against the bill relatively unpopular with their constituencies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. The only way to stop Kang from ruining everything is to vote for Kodos instead.
Look up Duverger's law. Effectively, in a first past the post electoral system, any vote that isn't for the major party that most closely aligns with your views is a vote that supports the views least aligned with your preference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law