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

Keep the Internet Open

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 415 posts

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#401

Post by cmurf »

odbol_ wrote: post #396
nocman wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with. Do you have some hard data that says things break down so clearly along party lines? I'd particularly like to see data about non-politicians, if it is available, since the way Congress votes on such things is not necessarily driven by the way their constituents view the issue (if they are even aware of it).

Found the Republican who's still in denial that his party is just a bunch of rich white dudes trying to get richer.

It's more nuanced than that. It's a variation on the Nixon southern strategy as described by Lee Atwater in 1981. There simply aren't enough plutocrats to win elections. https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-inf...

If it weren't, they'd have halled in Steve King from Iowa into the House an expelled him for what he said over the weekend. People are Americans because of shared values, not this illiberal bloodline nonsense espoused by King and the ignorant redneck wing, or the inheritance and primogeniture wing. They smiled and said nothing over birtherism either, they took the wins.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#402

Post by mehaveaccount »

dang wrote: post #393
mehaveaccount wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think 'pro-gun' is a bit different.... One rule for me, another for thee

Would you please stop using HN for political or ideological battle? We ban accounts that mostly do that. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

I'm not.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#403

Post by ChefDenominator »

AlexandrB wrote: post #388
dragonwriter wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's already a central authority for most places - it's called Comcast/AT&T/Verizon and you don't even get a say in this authority's leadership (unlike government). Not to contradict your basic point with a this, but, technically, you do: through government. Corporations are creatures of law, and their governance is ultimately itself governed by rules set by the chartering government, and further constrained by…

> Not to contradict your basic point with a this, but, technically, you do: through government. Yes, that's the point of net neutrality. Whereas an internet with no net neutrality regulation means that corporations have final say.

An Internet with no net neutrality regulation means no one has a final say. An Internet with net neutrality regulation means the same people who enjoy slaughtering brown people will be in charge of the entire Internet.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#404

Post by ChefDenominator »

sleepyhead wrote: post #372
ChefDenominator wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they don't like it, then they can use something else. Why assume they are stupid and unable to make decisions for themselves?

You are touching on an important point here. Let me give you a comparison for clarity in these markets. In Cambodia now there is an extreme increase of pesticides usage. In the market the sellers will spray toxic liquid on produce during the day to keep them looking fresh. Farmers buy and use products they really have no clue about what is. Don't get my wrong; I'm not saying they should be going organic - correct use…

What was everyone in Cambodia eating before the food with the pesticides on it?

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#405

Post by RangerScience »

ryandrake wrote: post #57
RangerScience wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's needed for "another Aaron"? I know he had a pre-existing following; is that required? Do you think someone could fill those shoes this time around, starting from scratch?

> What's needed for "another Aaron"? Courage. The cynic in me answers "Someone who doesn't mind being becoming a target?" I notice nobody is jumping up and down volunteering to be "another Assange" or "another Snowden". Different topics but similar level of fortitude needed.

Hmm. Do you know anyone with a plan, but without the courage?

I don't know if I have the courage, but I definitely don't have a plan.

I feel badly prideful the way that sounds like I'm presuming that I have the capability but not the courage - yet at the same time, I'm reminded of the end of this quote:

“We bring you here to a House for the Feeble-minded and the man who won’t accept that is the man we want. It’s a method that can be cruel but it works. It won’t do to say to a man, ‘You can create. Do so.’ It is much safer to wait for a man to say, ‘I can create, and I will do so whether you wish it or not.’ There are ten thousand men like you, George, who support the advancing technology of fifteen hundred worlds. We can’t allow ourselves to miss one recruit to that number or waste our efforts on one member who doesn’t measure up.”

- Asimov, Profession"

On the rare chance that it's that case - for anyone reading thing and thinking the same think - it's worth asking the question.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#406

Post by hueving »

E6300 wrote: post #338
hueving wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason the FCC needs to regulate public airspace is because transmissions interfere with each other. If there was a magical way to have no possible way to hijack or interfere with entities' assigned frequencies, the FCC would not need to exist.[1] By your logic, the FCC should regulate a conversation two people were having in person just by virtue of them being on public land. Yet the FCC does not. The FCC also d…

> The reason the FCC needs to regulate public airspace is because transmissions interfere with each other. It's the exact same situation with net neutrality. If an ISP decides to give traffic from some hosts higher priority than my traffic, then that other traffic is interfering with my communications in the exact same way as an antenna that transmits a 50 GW signal on nearly all frequencies. > By your logic, the FCC…

>It's the exact same situation with net neutrality. If an ISP decides to give traffic from some hosts higher priority than my traffic, then that other traffic is interfering with my communications in the exact same way as an antenna that transmits a 50 GW signal on nearly all frequencies.

You're paying the ISP to carry your traffic under the conditions in your private agreement with them. When someone spews radio frequencies, you don't have a private agreement with them that permits them to do so. If radio frequency interference was opt-in only, the FCC wouldn't need to exist.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#407

Post by pasbesoin »

Work on physical layer redundancy and independence. Even if you want one, primary, default network, you're going to need competition to keep it healthy.

And I for one want alternatives that work around the damage of current chokeholds.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#408

Post by sleepyhead »

ChefDenominator wrote: post #404
sleepyhead wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are touching on an important point here. Let me give you a comparison for clarity in these markets. In Cambodia now there is an extreme increase of pesticides usage. In the market the sellers will spray toxic liquid on produce during the day to keep them looking fresh. Farmers buy and use products they really have no clue about what is. Don't get my wrong; I'm not saying they should be going organic - correct use…

What was everyone in Cambodia eating before the food with the pesticides on it?

Dude

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#409

Post by pharrlax »

crazy1van wrote: post #346
pharrlax wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best argument I've found for convincing conservatives is to stress that the internet is a platform for commerce, and healthy commerce requires equality of opportunity -- specifically, the opportunity for consumers to access your business. ISPs literally "own the road", to create an analogy for internet businesses. If the only road company in town installs a toll booth or a series of speed bumps in front of McDona…

> If the only road company in town installs a toll booth or a series of speed bumps in front of McDonald's because Burger King paid them to This kind of thinking will lead to a big debate about what exactly is a speed bump -- how high can they be? Do rumble-strips count? What about potholes? A better solution would be to just let more companies build roads in your town. Then all the people who want to go to McDonalds…

>A better solution would be to just let more companies build roads in your town.

That sounds great, except the roads have all been built. It's prohibitively expensive and risky to try to build out your own parallel set of infrastructure, whether it's roads or cable. I mean, if Google tried and failed to do it, who else is going to be able to succeed?

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#410

Post by ChefDenominator »

orthecreedence wrote: post #395
ChefDenominator wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which Internet rule is it which states that we can all claim we have been any occupation that suits the discussion, and without any additional evidence to support such claims?

> Which Internet rule is it which states that we can all claim we have been any occupation that suits the discussion, and without any additional evidence to support such claims? Translation: I don't really have good arguments against NN except for a couple one-liners I'm reading off some Free Market (tm) blog, so I'll attack who you are instead of what you're saying.

It seems notable that you consider an unverified attempt to be an expert as acceptable, but pointing out someone engaging in this behavior is not.
Post reply on HN