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

441–450 of 534 posts

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

#441

Post by finid »

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…

To paraphrase A. Einstein?, When intelligent people refuse to participate in politics, they'll be governed by the less intelligent members of society.

That's apparent in the US where elections results are influenced more by those with barely a high school education than by their more educated fellow citizens.

The most important qualification one needs to have, it seems, to be elected to the Texas Education Agency, is to be a "true conservation". That board practically decides what your children study in school.

And over here on HN, the policy is to not get into political discussions.

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

#442

Post by evoloution »

finid wrote: post #441
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…

To paraphrase A. Einstein?, When intelligent people refuse to participate in politics, they'll be governed by the less intelligent members of society. That's apparent in the US where elections results are influenced more by those with barely a high school education than by their more educated fellow citizens. The most important qualification one needs to have, it seems, to be elected to the Texas Education Agency, is…

Off-topic: Always better to quote the earliest reference. Plato said practically the same think around 347BC. Maybe there was someone before him too when we had no written texts. History repeats itself.

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

#443

Post by nemacol »

benevol wrote: post #426
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…

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…

I would argue that the withdrawal is the core problem and the money is the symptom of that problem. Same with gerrymandering, election systems, distribution of power, and other key talking points.

Active and rational political conversations would, in my mind, have mitigated a lot of the problems with money in politics. Gerrymandering would not be (as large as) a problem if the masses had not been asleep at the wheel.

It is an uphill fight from this point forward.

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

#444

Post by dmix »

hueving wrote: post #427
snowwrestler wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

HN, the only place on the internet for thoughtful/rational political discourse.

This is the only place I've seen having this conversation. That actually questioned the utility of the agencies to follow out the intended goal and whether this is the best policy to do thee job. It's sad it's not even being tapped on by the newspapers, even as an aside to their doomsday headlines they love to stir up.

As Thomas Sowell said: "Economics is not about hopes and good intentions, it's about cause and effect". The same applies to regulatory policy.

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

#445

Post by libertymcateer »

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…

Please, don't undercount the number of "libertarian" crypto-geeks who think that regulation is the devil.

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

#446

Post by libertymcateer »

dbg31415 wrote: post #321

# House YEAs ---215 R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R…

This really couldn't be clearer, could it?

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

#447

Post by incongruity »

evoloution wrote: post #442
finid wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To paraphrase A. Einstein?, When intelligent people refuse to participate in politics, they'll be governed by the less intelligent members of society. That's apparent in the US where elections results are influenced more by those with barely a high school education than by their more educated fellow citizens. The most important qualification one needs to have, it seems, to be elected to the Texas Education Agency, is…

Off-topic: Always better to quote the earliest reference. Plato said practically the same think around 347BC. Maybe there was someone before him too when we had no written texts. History repeats itself.

Taking the bait: Why is it better? If one is attempting to persuade, I would suggest using the attribution that most strongly connects with the audience's sense of expertise and/or power. So, given that, I'd wager that Einstein is better reference than Plato for many in the modern world.

I get what you're saying, the idea is much older than Einstein but do you want to be right or do you want to be truthful and persuade?

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

#448

Post by NoahTheDuke »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #400
aidenn0 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well your right their.

You think you're being cute, but if spoken aloud, there is no difference. It's only for historical reasons that homophones have different spellings.

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

#449

Post by 0xa »

waqf wrote: post #193
0xa wrote: post #187

Earlier 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…

"forcibly", not "forcefully": http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/forceful.html

I'm happy to learn more about the English language -- thanks for the link!

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

#450

Post by muninn_ »

evoloution wrote: post #442
finid wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To paraphrase A. Einstein?, When intelligent people refuse to participate in politics, they'll be governed by the less intelligent members of society. That's apparent in the US where elections results are influenced more by those with barely a high school education than by their more educated fellow citizens. The most important qualification one needs to have, it seems, to be elected to the Texas Education Agency, is…

Off-topic: Always better to quote the earliest reference. Plato said practically the same think around 347BC. Maybe there was someone before him too when we had no written texts. History repeats itself.

I agree, though I find it likely the person you're responding to quoted their own earliest known reference :)
Post reply on HN