Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered

#41

Post by dhimes »

pharrlax wrote: post #19
ingenuous2 wrote: post #3

I am so conflicted. At my core, I believe everyone, regardless of affiliation or beliefs has a right to online privacy. On the other, man do I freaking wish that one of the big porn sites would put up a billboard with the (private) sexual fetishes of these specific elected officials. Edit: I would wish more for the latter if I thought it would change anything.

You know what would be even better? An electronic billboard, where the private sexual fetishes of 1 random constituent are publicly displayed, next to their name. A new unlucky constituent is randomly chosen and displayed every day. At the bottom, a bold red banner reads, "[REPRESENTATIVE NAME] TOOK $XX,XXX FROM THE CABLE INDUSTRY, THEN VOTED TO LET THIS HAPPEN."

I'm not sure people would connect with that. Like if Adam and Eve published that some random person ordered a dildo, the public reaction is likely "meh" for everybody who doesn't know said person.

Publishing that a congressperson ordered a dildo or butt-plug would get peoples' attention pretty fast- and might accelerate change.

I'm starting to warn people not to go to WebMD and similar sites because of recent events.

Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered

#42

Post by Retric »

glubGlub wrote: post #15

And nothing changes. They were unrecognizable nobodies before, and now they are unrecognizable nobodies with more money. They will become unrecognizable nobodies again, next week, or next month, or next year, and move right along with the rest of their lives. Conceptually, this is how legislation works. You start with politicians no one cares about, and you end with politicians no one cares about selling you out, bec…

There is exactly one person in the house you vote for. So, rather than 535 nobodies, it's 3 people (1 house, 2 senate) you should pay attention to. At a minimum you should be able to name your congressional representatives and something about them. But, realizing people in the house have very small margins in absolute terms should embolden you as shifting 1,000 voters can swap many elections and most even vaguely competitive races are less than 10,000.

PS: Sure, if someone really annoys you then make a note to donate 20$ and to their competitor in either primary or general election depending on your party of choice.

Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered

#43

Post by Ajedi32 »

txmx2000 wrote: post #7
pedalpete wrote: post #4

There are two sides to the 'value' equation here. The telecoms can now sell your data, but that also means that somebody needs to be buying it on the other end. This campaign does a great job of calling out Senators who sold out their voters. I'd like to see us also call out the companies that buy the data from the telecoms. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it is right. I'm not sure how one would track down who…

No they can't. It Has been illegal for nearly a century and it id still is illegal to sell telecommunication customers' data. Congress just reversed the FCC rules from October. It has to do with an government agency overstepping their authority and nothing to do with privacy. Anybody who says otherwise is lying or ignorant of the law regarding CPNI. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title47-vol3/pdf/CFR-...

That link appears to be to an FCC regulation (https://www.fcc.gov/general/rules-regulations-title-47), not a law. Are you certain the rules in that document would not be affected by this recent legislation?

Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered

#44

Post by cat199 »

andybak wrote: post #18
test1235 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Immaturity isn't something to strive for, or be proud of. It's something I've seen far too much of in recent years of politics.

I'm British and I think that swearing enriches language when used judiciously. Also - expressing emotion and anger is valuable when the situation calls for it. Personally I would have considered something stronger than 'turd' in this case. Oh. Here's Hitchens saying "Fuck" a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO129-RfhVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1fmWVECUI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB_dgqy6l4k

So.. article title - good or not?

I agree with your point, and still also with OP.

Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered

#45

Post by blackbagboys »

Kurtz79 wrote: post #5

Off topic, but such a crass title makes me instantly disinterested in whatever the article has to say, even if I'm likely to agree with its content. Is this really the new normal for websites ?

The contempt these politicians have for you and their willingness to trample all over you in the service of the uber-wealthy and powerful is unlimited. Why should they be afforded any respect at all?

Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered

#47

Post by jordan801 »

Kurtz79 wrote: post #5

Off topic, but such a crass title makes me instantly disinterested in whatever the article has to say, even if I'm likely to agree with its content. Is this really the new normal for websites ?

Seems like sloppy high school newspaper style journalism. "Turds", really?

Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered

#48

Post by jerf »

andybak wrote: post #18
test1235 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Immaturity isn't something to strive for, or be proud of. It's something I've seen far too much of in recent years of politics.

I'm British and I think that swearing enriches language when used judiciously. Also - expressing emotion and anger is valuable when the situation calls for it. Personally I would have considered something stronger than 'turd' in this case. Oh. Here's Hitchens saying "Fuck" a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO129-RfhVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1fmWVECUI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB_dgqy6l4k

"I'm British and I think that swearing enriches language when used judiciously."

It does. But "My political opponents are [swear word]" is not judicious. (Or profanity if you prefer; most Americans would not call "turd" a swear word but it is obviously merely a more genteel way of calling someone a shit, it is a low-grade profanity.)

It's very common and hardly new. It may even be tactically or strategically sound for some desired goals. But it's not judicious, having the same root as judge, being similar to magisterial. Dignified, mature magistrates do not say "People who disagree with me are poo poo heads." If they are inclined to fling insults, they usually use a much higher grade. See, for instance: http://allowe.com/laughs/book/When%20Insults%20Had%20Class.h...

Re: The Turds Who Voted to Sell Out Your Online Privacy Get Their Faces Plastered

#50

Post by logfromblammo »

daveguy wrote: post #35
glubGlub wrote: post #15

And nothing changes. They were unrecognizable nobodies before, and now they are unrecognizable nobodies with more money. They will become unrecognizable nobodies again, next week, or next month, or next year, and move right along with the rest of their lives. Conceptually, this is how legislation works. You start with politicians no one cares about, and you end with politicians no one cares about selling you out, bec…

Here is the full list: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp... If you see your Congress people on the list you should help replace them with moderates in their primaries and call them more during the year. Everyone needs to get to know their Congress. Even if they aren't on the list, find out who they are and how to contact them. You only have 3 of them! 2 statewide senators and your house rep…

My state does not have open primaries, and my rep tore his fax machine out of the wall to keep ResistBot from using it. Some of these people are like cockroaches. They scuttle into the closest hiding spot whenever the lights come on. Then they're back to crawling all over your food the instant the public gets distracted again.

And they can get away with it, thanks to safe districts.

What we need to focus on is purely algorithmic redistricting for 2020, and approval voting for all ballots. Gerrymandering and FPTP voting are deliberate impediments to political competition that must be removed if meaningful change is to occur.

Your voice will not be heard on net neutrality if your rep doesn't have to listen to you. Your voice will not be heard on data privacy if your rep does not have to listen to you. Your voice will not be heard on allowing local municipal broadband systems if your rep does not have to listen to you. Your voice will not be heard on anything so long as your rep can safely ignore you term after term after term.

So you really need to worry about your state legislature now, so you can abolish gerrymandering before 2020, and possibly also get rid of first-past-the-post voting.

Post reply on HN