So why is this necessarily bad? My understanding is that the Congress repealed a fiat control by the executive branch. They can now, if they are are so inclined, enshrine in law, a more durable medium than agency policy, a freer Internet. Let's assume that the Republicans don't. Let's also assume that they make local municipal Internet or competition harder. The Democrats could get elected in 2018 at which point they could enshrine privacy. How is limiting the executive branch bad?
The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
341–350 of 534 posts
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except when the government effectively becomes, collectively, the king, and represents nothing more than their royal self-interest. Which is how I see things going in the USA, for all intents and purposes.
Government is always the king. That's their job. And, in a Democracy, the self-interest of government is the public's interests.
Minor point, in a well functioning Democracy the self interest is the people. I don't think we have that right now.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'll continue to say... as I please. By that argument, we should all just be able to say and write whatever we want however we want to, even if it's technically or factually incorrect, like Humpty Dumpty or Donald Trump. Why bother hewing to "elitist" rules of grammar and accepted spellings, being that it's just prescriptivism? How does one decide objectively if something is just plain wrong, or merely prescriptive…
> write whatever we want > however we want to You have conflated two separate things. > being that it's just > prescriptivism The irony of course being that "being that" in the way you've used it is one of the examples of "incorrect English" given by the op. And you're using it to support the idea that these things are important... > This word came about ... as a > corruption ... without the excuse > of it being a di…
Point taken, I made a mistake, but I think you're so focused on picking apart the comment that you've ignored the meat of it. That's ok, I said my piece and expected it to be downvoted - and it was.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it's the fault of people who vote third party that you have a two-party state?
third party voters can wind up choosing which of the two parties win. in 2016, they gave Trump the win, because they equated him and the Republicans with Hillary in terms of deleterious effects.
That's an absurd assertion.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not use Windows. I do not use the kernel or the browser you use. It is not your business what I use anyway. Notice I never said TLS sucks, you did. Maybe I do not care about security and I just like carefully written software by people who do not make many mistakes? Is there something offensive about that? Am I allowed to make my own choices of software? This is all beside the point. I care about having to use S…
What browser are you using that makes SSL "a hassle," with or without SNI?
Any sslclient that has not been modified to accomodate SNI.
As someone else commented, SNI appeared in 2003. Was all SSL-enabled software written after 2003 SNI-enabled? Why not?
There are still many https websites that do not require SNI. God bless them.
Perhaps they can afford a dedicated IP and do not need to engage in virtual hosting.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#346Don't worry, the president will veto this. /s
because he's worried about losing incognito mode?
Last I checked his dirty laundry has been aired and the public gasped and forgot. Golden shower anyone?
Not to mention that he already publishes his browsing and TV history via Twitter for anyone who cares to really track it down.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, I think you have to change the dynamics. Voting ought to better capture citizens preferences, it like we vote with one hand tied behind our backs. Why can't we at least rank the candidates?
Too complicated. Approval voting is much simpler than ranked-choice, and more appropriate for the general public.
I would think that given different peoples' standards of "approval", ranked-choice voting is much simpler for the genreal public to grasp, and a more useful metric to base an election on.
I suppose we'll see how Maine handers their newly-implemented ranked-choice scheme in the coming election cycles.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#348This, 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…
"Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone." - RMS
Ironically, not that I can compare to RMS, but my senior thesis in college (2003) was "the politics of information technology are disruptive to organizations". I had no idea then how much worse it would get.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's sensible to ask whether a specific 3rd-party vote had a chance of affecting the outcome in a positive way. E.g., one of the more effective arguments against the current Green party in the US is they don't seem to try very hard in local elections, where they might stand a chance; but they always run someone for president who stands no chance. If we have a hope of getting out of this, it's going to start on school…
And it's this kind of impetus that creates voter apathy. If you insist on trying to shove square pegs into a round or triangular hole, you're just going to end up with vote tallies similar to the one you just saw with the national election. As someone who didn't vote, no, I would not have changed my decision given the outcome, and this "lesser of two evils" justification crap is exactly why. Enjoy your shitty country…
I suppose you will also enjoy the same shitty country?
It sounds like you are the apathetic voter in this scenario.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#350This, 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…
> Instead I find people pontificating along party lines
The vote was along party lines. You are asking for non-partisan insight where there is literally none to be had. There are good guys and bad guys in this issue, and they wear uniforms to tell you who they are.