More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked • Hacker News Board

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#341

Post by saladeen » Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 2:12 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #330

saladeen wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and that is all I wanted to point out. That Soros is investing heavily in affecting the public and official opinion on some topics, such as net neutrality. And for this I get called a 'conspiracy theorist'. Soros is not a 'boogie man', he is a man that sabotages countries for his own personal gain. I do not trust him, and do not trust his 'philantropic' reasons. The end game with him is always the same, getting…

> Soros is not a 'boogie man', he is a man that sabotages countries for his own personal gain. I do not trust him, and do not trust his 'philantropic' reasons. The end game with him is always the same, getting more money for himself in the end. He uses legit humanitarian/human rights issues simply as tool towards that end goal, and this disgusts me. [quotation needed] He sabotages countries through philanthropy... Co…

Thank you for clarifying that, the general issues quickly get interwoven with intra-US issues and I lose track.

I am not really here to preach. I just wanted to point out something, so that people who feel like me can make their own judgement with this extra data. It is not related to US nor the current anti/pro Trump craze, just a long-time wariness and dislike of the man based on what my father has told me (we emigrated from an asian country to Europe when I was young because of negative effects of Soros's games, and that's as much as I'm willing to share online about my reasons).

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#342

Post by mrgordon » Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 5:01 PM UTC

indubitable wrote: post #340

mrgordon wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You completely ignored the most relevant parts of my argument which were: 1. Pai seeks to increase competition in a monopolistic market by decreasing regulation of the monopolizing companies while failing to address the fundamental reasons that they have a natural monopoly in the first place. Thus they now have even more power and they still have no competition. Even people on Breitbart and many other conservative si…

And now in your second paragraph, which I suppose is supposed to be a keypoint of your argument you lead with "Pai has spent most of his career with Verizon." Pai has been working since 1997 - 20 years. He spent exactly 2 years of those 20 years with Verizon -- shortly after university, 16 years ago. Nearly his entire life has been sent in the public sector. And you now lead a new post stating "he spent most of his c…

You made a good point. I’ll happily concede he worked at Verizon for two years, although he did focus on regulatory issues so it’s still a major conflict of interest as likely a large shareholder. The tone of your responses is still quite negative and you glossed over many paragraphs of facts to pick apart one detail that is important but hardly a reason to suddenly support Pai’s position.

Meanwhile still no examples of a minority party nominee not getting confirmed or rebuttals of a large number of other points especially around Lifeline which you talked about for quite a while.

You’re welcome not to continue having the discussion and you can think poorly of me for not knowing the exact time that Pai has been working in a position of conflicted interest. I’ll admit when I’m wrong but so far the bulk of my argument stands and I refuted many of your points which you didn’t acknowledge while you reprimanded me for #fakenews. Please spare us the ad hominem attacks. They don’t belong in this community and I can (and have) pointed out flaws in your arguments as well. Of course when you’re wrong it wasn’t fake news or misleading.

How many of your points about Lifeline don’t hold up under scrutiny? Sounds like you fell for some fake news yourself.

Sorry if I exaggerated / misunderstood his career length at Verizon. To be honest his arguments against net neutrality (in conjunction with no effort to guarantee shared access to utility poles or other cables, among other issues) show he is being disingenious even if he didn’t have Verizon stock and had never worked for them. Leaving monopolistic policies and getting rid of consumer protections is a recipe for large companies with unfriendly policies.

A few other facts about unpopular and messed up positions he’s taken, straight off his Wikipedia page:

1. As chairman, Pai scrapped a proposal to open the cable box market to tech companies such as Google and Amazon (Hmm another pro-monopoly pro-Verizon action)

2. Pai wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post criticizing a government-funded research project named "Truthy" at Indiana University which was studying the spread of "false and misleading ideas, hate speech and subversive propaganda" (Speaking of fake news, apparently Pai didn’t think it was worth looking into. What a waste of taxpayer money! mock horror)

3. The whole Sinclair scandal which I won’t try to summarize here as you can just read Wikipedia. This one involves Trump and Kushner currying influence with Sinclair. Fun

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#343

Post by collyw » Wed, Nov 29, 2017, 7:02 PM UTC

xr4ti wrote: post #204

collyw wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually seems like quite a refreshing mix of options to me. There is a right wing bias, but its far from the only viewpoint on there.

4chan -- pol in particular -- is an agitprop prototyping board, and about as unreliable a source of information as you can get. Useful when you want to get a sneak peak at the propaganda campaigns, and internet brigade tactics and talking points that are about to be rolled out against the public (or A/B test some of your own), but not so much for serious debate. Like 99% of the stuff you see on there is going to be d…

I already feel like my social media and news sources are an echo chamber, especially after Brexit and Trump. I don't think its a bad thing to check out different opinions. Hell I even agree with some of the stuff there (though there is a lot more that I disagree with). It certainly helps me see the logic behind positions that I don't agree with / understand.