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

President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 449 posts

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#51

Post by ctdonath »

eps wrote: post #35
untog wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't complain about downvotes, it just makes people downvote you more. And I suspect the reason you're being downvoted in the first place is that the TC post is about net neutrality and not government spying. While the two are connected (they both involve the internet, after all) they're different topics. If we refuse net neutrality until we also disband the NSA then we'll just lose on two counts.

> Please don't complain about downvotes, it just makes people downvote you more. No, of course it doesn't. And, no, there's nothing wrong with complaining about the downvotes as there' heck of a lot of knee-jerk downvoting happening on HN. Almost as much as righteous preaching about proper HN "etiquette", but not as damaging in the long run.

HN FAQ: Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#52

Post by LyndsySimon »

untog wrote: post #21
baldfat wrote: post #11

Have ZERO understanding how the Republicans are going to hold off on Anti-Net Neutrality. I am sure this is something that Libertarians will fight tooth and nail and well I would say over 12% of currently republicans labeled themselves as such. With 30 congressmen in the House Liberty Caucus things are not so easy for the G.O.P. I feel that there is a strong likely hood that G.O.P. will have a switch for Net Neutrali…

Why do you assume that Libertarians are pro-net neutrality? It's government regulation that limits what ISPs can do - hardly a free market philosophy.

+1.

I'm a libertarian, and I'm not necessarily pro-NN.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#53

Post by raldi »

yc1010 wrote: post #6

I am not American (feel free to ignore my opinion) but this is just a bad joke from someone who seems to be an utmost failure. Especially in light of last week FBI/NSA/DHS undermining TOR and killing its utility for any dissidents and free speech in authoritarian states. Under his watch the surveillance state has expanded and has become downright creepy 25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall we should be saying "…

Complaining about downvotes? That's an automatic downvote.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#54

Post by xnull2guest »

mpweiher wrote: post #30
sejje wrote: post #19

This headline is in such stark contrast to the other, which reads "President Obama calls for a free and open internet." Which reads more like the actual intent? Edit: The two submissions got merged, so my comment is now outdated.

They are the same thing: in order to protect net neutrality (the free and open internet), you need strong regulation, it doesn't happen by itself.

Or you need competition (see how ISPs work in Britain and some places in Europe). Or you need socialization (see how ISPs work in South Korea).

Regulation isn't the only solution.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#55

Post by revscat »

yc1010 wrote: post #6

I am not American (feel free to ignore my opinion) but this is just a bad joke from someone who seems to be an utmost failure. Especially in light of last week FBI/NSA/DHS undermining TOR and killing its utility for any dissidents and free speech in authoritarian states. Under his watch the surveillance state has expanded and has become downright creepy 25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall we should be saying "…

Let me explain a few things about the American government.

The most important thing to understand is that the ability of the executive to influence the direction of the government is limited. The reasons for this are several, but I will try to elucidate a few here.

First, it is commonly believed that because of the ability to hire/fire people the President can more or less do whatever he wants in regards to the direction of various governmental agencies. This true to an extent, but to a much more limited extent than is commonly believed. The President can nominate candidates for various positions, but these positions must be approved by Congress. Since President Obama has had a Congress whose primary tactic is to oppose everything the president wants, regardless of merits, this has severely limited his ability to get policies in place that he has otherwise wanted. This applies both to agencies like the FCC (the current chairman was Obama's third choice, IIRC; the other two were filibustered), as well as the judiciary.

Second, the government itself is made up largely of agencies which are outside of the ability of the democracy to affect. This includes the military, the intelligence agencies, and the federal law enforcement agencies. (You could arguably include the Federal Reserve here, as well.) These are what Lofgren[1] calls the "Deep State". They are almost completely unaffected by elections, especially of Democratic presidents, and seek ever to increase their power and funding. Efforts to rein them in are rarely, if ever, successful.

Third, the current state of affairs re: intelligence gathering, etc., began in earnest with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947.[2]

So while it may be convenient to blame Obama for the current state of government, it is overly simplistic. It has nothing to do with any cult of personality, but rather a simple recognition of the current realities of political power and the various players.

[1] http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#56

Post by padobson »

I hope no one is getting excited about this.

President Obama is a lame duck. His party just got tossed out of the Senate, relegating his political capital to basically 0. In the wake of this, he's decided to take maybe the most important economic issue of the next 20 years and politicize it.

Neither the red team nor the blue team could say they owned this issue, but one of the most divisive voices in politics just stuck the blue flag in it - at a time when he has less influence over policy than any other time in his presidency.

I would have preferred him to just keep his mouth shut.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#57

Post by atonse »

rlpb wrote: post #26

It seems to me that introducing net neutrality law is a band-aid over what is really just monopolistic behaviour because last-mile providers don't have competition. Why not fix the root cause? Force last-mile providers to provide transit to third party ISPs like they do in the UK, or otherwise regulate them specifically. I don't see why rules should apply across the board to markets where there is healthy competition…

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama is suggesting that we re-classify ISPs as utilities. That would force them to lease out their lines to competitors.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#59

Post by jstalin »

AndrewHampton wrote: post #36
couchand wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pretty massive stretch to go from "ISPs are permitted to block illegal traffic" to "ISPs are required to perform deep-packet inspection to ensure the legality of all traffic they carry".

It is. It's just a concern I have since similar language seems to be everywhere, which makes me think including it is intentional.

You're right to be concerned. If they keep using the same language in these sorts of statements, you better believe it's for a reason. Look for any legislation or regulation to implement such language.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#60

Post by chasing »

yc1010 wrote: post #6

I am not American (feel free to ignore my opinion) but this is just a bad joke from someone who seems to be an utmost failure. Especially in light of last week FBI/NSA/DHS undermining TOR and killing its utility for any dissidents and free speech in authoritarian states. Under his watch the surveillance state has expanded and has become downright creepy 25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall we should be saying "…

> The Stasi would be proud of the surveillance state that western countries have created with Obama at the helm.

Spoken like someone with little sense of historical perspective. Or understanding of the DDR.

Post reply on HN