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

The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 534 posts

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#411

Post by ericd »

kakapupu wrote: post #382
pnathan wrote: post #19

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, right here, is the consequence of the withdrawal from politics many geeks advocated very strongly in an earlier time Well, do you want to risk your life fighting in a revolution? Politics certainly doesn't matter in the sense that it's all bullshit anyway. No matter how hard you call "your" representatives, they won't give a flying fuck about you because they're all psychopaths. > What we have in protections…

If you want to compete with other large groups of humans for limited resources, you need to band into a large group yourself, or be overtaken. That's always been the case, and seems likely it will always continue to be the case.

Also, there are certain nice things that we have that are only possible by working together. The national highways, for example.

But at its core, the most basic necessity is the common defense.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#412

Post by ericd »

warlox wrote: post #304
foota wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course, the math says that with the current voting system, any third party that emerges as a major force will always consume one of the existing major parties, leading the nation back to a two party system. I wonder why people always ignore this inconvenient theorem.

Most people don't understand that intuitively, I think.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#413

Post by [deleted] »

masonic wrote: post #165
callcallcall wrote: post #26

Please do not complain into the echo chamber of comments here. Please take a moment to support the EFF, call your representatives, and speak to friends and family. EFF: https://www.eff.org/ Find your reps: https://tryvoices.com/

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?

[deleted]

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#414

Post by kowdermeister »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #232

If you want an idea to get mass movement against this; Start some display campaigns injecting peoples names and other personal information into ads. Have this follow people around the web. Even if data is not taken from what has been allowed here, most people will find it creepy. Link ad to a website explaining whats going on and how to contact their local member. I suspect with a fairly reasonable spend you could ge…

This, I'd suggest to feature add porn viewing history too in those ads.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#415

Post by tremon »

aidenn0 wrote: post #355
defined wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, look, I'm aware of language evolution (or devolution, as it may be), and that there's no formal authority for the language. I mean, there are already at least two major dialects of English (British and American), and there's enough of a difference between the two to cause problems for the unwary. What I'm railing against is more that there appears to be little interest, in general, even to try to get things rig…

> What I'm railing against is more that there appears to be little interest, in general, even to try to get things right. Language is a means to an end. If my entire audience understands what I am saying, and is not put-off by how I say it, then I did, in fact, get things right.

But when you're writing something down (especially for publication), you can not know your entire audience. Not using reasonable care in your written language communicates exactly that: that you care not for your audience.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#416

Post by tremon »

mattnewton wrote: post #273
richforrester wrote: post #270

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",…

It's not that anyone is defending this system, it's that it is the only stable equilibrium of the winner-takes all parts of our elections.

it's that it is the only stable equilibrium of the winner-takes all parts of our elections.

True, but equilibrium is not the goal. The mere fact that a political system has been around long enough to approach equilibrium means that people have been sleeping at the wheel for a long time.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#417

Post by [deleted] »

3131s wrote: post #258
AlexB138 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't seem to like this comment, but that is a great link. Browsing around the site, I found this list of common English language errors: http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html Really interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Most of those are made up prescriptive guidelines, mixed in with some common misspellings. One grumpy person does not get to decide how the rest of us choose to use and evolve language. The "forceful" / "forcible" example is particularly inane and pedantic but hardly the worst on that page. I'll continue to say "being that", "ice tea", "center around", etc. as I please. In linguistics the illustrative analogy is that…

[deleted]

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#418

Post by tremon »

CalChris wrote: post #375
TillE wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Jill Stein supports Putin No she doesn't, this is an absurd smear based on her attending a single event in Moscow.

http://www.jill2016.com/stein_in_russia_calls_for_principled...

How do you turn Putin saying "I agree with [Stein], on many issues." into "Stein supports Putin"?

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#419

Post by Angostura »

aidenn0 wrote: post #355
defined wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, look, I'm aware of language evolution (or devolution, as it may be), and that there's no formal authority for the language. I mean, there are already at least two major dialects of English (British and American), and there's enough of a difference between the two to cause problems for the unwary. What I'm railing against is more that there appears to be little interest, in general, even to try to get things rig…

> What I'm railing against is more that there appears to be little interest, in general, even to try to get things right. Language is a means to an end. If my entire audience understands what I am saying, and is not put-off by how I say it, then I did, in fact, get things right.

Language is a set of tools. In the same way it can be annoying to watch someone hammer in a nail with the end of a wrench, it can be annoying to watch someone sort through their linguistic toolset, ignore the finely-honed implement meant for the job and grab another.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#420

Post by ekianjo »

CalChris wrote: post #275
tbrownaw wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how many people really felt strong enough about politics to claim both sides are equally bad and then decided not to vote on that basis alone. Since both sides are astonishingly bad, I usually end up voting third party in races where there is one.

The third parties are even worse than the two parties. The Libertarians ran Bob Barr, a Clinton House prosecutor and Gary Johnson who happily sent people to prison for drug crimes. Jill Stein supports Putin.

what you wrote does not make them sound worse than the two main parties in power.
Post reply on HN