Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is RMS?
Richard Matthew Stallman
Thanks, the M was the missing link :)
The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
421–430 of 534 posts
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP's comment is the straw man, not yours. If you go out and talk to these actual Democrats and Republicans, the bipartisan distinction seems more and more like a fraud. Seriously, have you ever met a person who's "core driving force" is money and "all they care about"? Does that description fit about half the people your know? Seems pretty cartoonish to me.
> Seriously, have you ever met a person who's "core driving force" is money and "all they care about"? Does that description fit about half the people your know? The people around me are not mega-rich. It is not a problem of that people being "bad people". It is a circumstance problem. The situation is that they have so much money that can change the laws. Cut lobbing, redistribute wealth and you will stop this carto…
If poor people stopped voting for the most lobbied politicians, that would stop it too. It's voters who ultimately choose, and they consistently demonstrate that they prefer lobbying - for both major parties.
Americans keep complaining about their politicians, then elect the same parties they complain about over and over again. I work with an American who explained it - she voted for a party she didn't like because she was desperate to do anything she could to prevent the other party winning. It turned out the other party won afterall so her efforts just went towards entrenching the two party system and discouraging anyone else from voting for what they actually want next time.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#423This, 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…
I supported the FCC's move to assist with consumer privacy, although it was a tough call.
I oppose what the Republican Congress is doing.
Having said all of that, the FCC has no freaking business defining privacy. The system was terribly out of whack to have them do this in the first place. My support of their move and my opposition to what Congress is currently doing is simply because I'm trying to pick the lesser of two evils. It's not because there was simple good position/side and bad position/side. Wish that it were so simple.
Both political parties have screwed over privacy and anonymity online -- in terrible and huge ways. And the system is terribly corrupt. And....we should take action to make our political views clear.
My problem is that "let's take action" turns quickly into "Group X is in the pocket of political party Y"
And that's how we got here in the first place.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
Because that would empower minor candidates. The parties that are in power aren't going to change the system in a way that disadvantages themselves and perhaps even poses an existential risk. That means if you vote democrat or republican, you're voting against your proposal. Neither party is so kind-hearted that they'll cut off the branch they're sitting on!
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#425Where's the crowdfunding to buy the navigation history of the representatives involved in the approval of the law?
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#426This, 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…
Withdrawal from politics certainly is an important factor that has made America a currently sinking ship.
But the problem is more systemic. It's at the center of the culture of this society: it's the fact that MONEY (== DOMINATION) has been made the most central and culturally venerated value.
To change that, a lot of suffering will have to occur, because those who benefit from MONEY (== DOMINATION) will use exactly that to defend this (sick) cultural value by - you guessed it - dominating everybody who's against it. And for that, other sick things like mass surveillance technology, a militarized police force, perfectly controlled media, and pressure on your economic wellbeing and your physical and mental health will be used.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
You bring up a good point that many people might not have realized: relying on the FCC to regulate solely without the backing of legislation will not result in the kind of long-term stable regulations and consumer protections that we are looking for because what the FCC decides to do could change on a dime whenever the administration changes.
The FCC did have the backing of legislation, which is why it took an act of Congress to overturn it.
It had the backing of legislation to do whatever it wanted, leading to instability of regulation.
This law was written to prevent an overstep of a non legislative body's ability to legislate.
It's true the outcome sucks in this case, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do from a balance of power perspective.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#428Earlier 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.
If someone posts a link to correct you, there is at least one person put off by your language.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reality is more nuanced--the time to stop this legislation was by preventing it coming to vote in the senate. Typically the senate needs 60 votes to forcefully end debate[0], then merely majority to pass it. Once can disguise support for a bill by approving to end debate, then voting "Nay" given it will get the necessary 50 to be approved. For JS 34 [1] Mitch McConnell (R, KY) limited debate to 10 minutes--I'm un…
You can't do that for rule repeals, they are only subject to a majority vote in the senate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act Relevant section: The law provides a procedure for expedited consideration in the Senate. If the committee to which a joint resolution is referred has not reported it out within 20 calendar days after referral, it may be discharged from further consideration by a written p…
Probably with good reason too, since if I'm understanding the US system correctly proposed regulations are created by unelected officials and can come into effect without any congressional vote whatsoever. Allowing filibustering of CRA votes would mean that regulations could be created despite the majority of the Senate and House strongly opposing them.
Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections
#430Earlier 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.
To which theorem do you refer ...?