Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

Post by 13years » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 5:44 PM UTC

throwaway729 wrote: post #39

ci5er wrote: post #31

Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about all of the stuff that "Trump could do" until he gets around to doing it. He talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing... As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to…

> because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too I'm from the midwest and I still don't understand this sentiment. Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night? That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. It's not that people who don't live on the coasts shouldn't have a say. It's that if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes , then t…

Post by sxg » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 5:44 PM UTC

lintiness wrote: post #49

throwaway729 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too I'm from the midwest and I still don't understand this sentiment. Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night? That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. It's not that people who don't live on the coasts shouldn't have a say. It's that if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes , then t…

"if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes, then they should probably win the election." what if she spent TWICE the money getting them?

Post by clort » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 5:48 PM UTC

fib739mbbh wrote: post #29

badsock wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You chose a bunch of politicized examples. How about the USDA inspecting meat to prevent shady companies from passing off improperly stored meat as safe? Or the Department of Housing making sure that people don't add lead to paint without it being labeled as such?

Do you trust five unelected FCC commissioners, who are quite technically incompetent, to regulate the internet for 330 million Americans? Frankly, I'm quite weary.

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 5:49 PM UTC

13years wrote: post #61

throwaway729 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too I'm from the midwest and I still don't understand this sentiment. Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night? That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. It's not that people who don't live on the coasts shouldn't have a say. It's that if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes , then t…

>That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. Exactly, and it is supposed to be. We are a republic and not a democracy. The founders strongly opposed democracy. One of the reasons being that minorities would have no representation if your government is by majority rule only.

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #62

MichaelBurge wrote: post #14

I don't think Trump cares much about net neutrality in particular, but it wouldn't surprise me if he abolished or severely cut back the FCC. The big deal to me is mostly the last-mile infrastructure, which is more of a local/state issue anyways. If the telecom companies mostly handled the backbone, losing the government enforcement doesn't even seem that bad. Regardless of what happens at the federal level, Californi…

The irony is, places mostly controlled by Republicans will be bitten the most by weaker FCC. They are already plagued by lazy and sleepy monopolists and corrupted local laws written by them that prevent municipal networks and result in overpriced and underpowered Internet. Without FCC it will only get worse. So those who chose that will taste their own medicine.