Live data from Hacker News

Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

techdirt.com

81–90 of 99 posts

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#81
post #73
post #65

This makes sense, actually. Dead people tend to be older, and have less stake in newer bandwidth-intensive applications.

It makes sense, until you go search the comment database for your family members and find out how many of them have nearly identical opinions in support of repealing Title II. This site[1] will help you search the database. I read a number of comments that start out with some variation of "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the Americ…

[deleted]

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have to have a measurably worse life now than they did before, for one. "I don't like President Trump" isn't a valid response, even if he is an idiot.

There's a massive amount of economic documentation on wage stagnation just for starters. This is of course open to challenge or refutation, but bashing straw men does nothing to advance discussion.

Certainly true, although one can also point out that prices for a lot of things have gone down, with quality improvements in some arenas as well. It's tough to determine if wage stagnation has truly hurt the median American. I'm not sure why you're being downvoted for this post.

I only bring up Trump because a lot of people argue his mere existence and rhetoric as bringing down their quality of life, which is a nonsense point that isn't worth an initial consideration until his negativity is firmly entrenched in legally established policy.

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#83
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, gun ownership was put in place to allow citizens to form militias to protect themselves FROM the government.

In a day and age where even our local police departments have grenade launchers, MRAPs and other military surplus gear, our right to cling to our handful of pea shooters and pretend like we can overthrow anything has also become a relic of times past.

I'm not a gun nut. I don't own a gun. I don't buy into gun rights for everyone regardless of the human cost.

However. I think you grossly underestimate just how many guns there are in the U.S. There's like 300 million guns floating around, enough to arm every able-bodied adult.

It's not the futility that's preventing armed revolution in the U.S., it's that despite all the crying people do their lives are really good enough that they have something to lose by tearing the whole system down.

I can't predict who would prevail, but if there was a major crisis that sparked a serious revolution that involved millions or tens of millions of U.S. citizens in armed revolt. It might not be as open and shut as you imagine. Military, police, state and local governments aren't going to automatically and universally side with the federal government. It could spiral out of control in ways you can't imagine. And who knows, maybe foreign powers get involved and depending on the circumstances who's to say who they side with.

We're no where near close to anything like that though, so of course it can be hard to contemplate. Imagining that it's impossible is just a lack of imagination though.

The problem that gun legislation faces is that it will take generations to feel reasonable impact of anything but the most draconian laws, and the most draconian laws would never pass. And unfortunately we're short sighted. If something can't be done in a year or an election cycle, it's hopeless. If the results aren't instant and tangible, what was the point? It's a real problem, the lack of long term planning and the willingness to pay for two pounds of cure instead of an ounce of prevention at ten times the price.

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#84
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure you’ve heard this before, but I can’t let the response go unsaid: democracy does not require direct elections. The founding fathers were not naive idiots who didn’t know how to design an election.

No offence by why are the founding fathers put on such a high pedestal in the U.S.? Everything they did had a reason but some of those reasons do not make sense anymore. The electoral college was put in place to give more saying to the south but that's not needed anymore. Gun ownership was put in place to protect from militias but again, that's not the case anymore, why keep all of these laws?

>No offence by why are the founding fathers put on such a high pedestal in the U.S.?

Because they were exceedingly well educated, with a knowledge of the rise and fall of nations, and of the shortcomings of human nature. They designed a system of checks and balances that gives the individual the best chances at success in such a world. The reasoning behind these decisions are well documented in the Federalist Papers.

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#85
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a technically creative approach, and I think the internet's future is unfortunately going to be something like this. But I for one would rather take the high road. Please call your senator(s) and representative(s) and let them know how upset this all is making you!

How about ditching Web 2.0 entirely? It's time to head to Web 3.0, an era where the Internet will be truly decentralized and free.

Sorry about the others downvoting you. If you dig into my comment history, I've written about a few ways to do this.

Great suggestion.

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#86
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your whole argument rests on the unspoken and incorrect premise that such laws aren't open to challenge, when in fact they have been challenged and litigated extensively and you're only looking at the statutory side. This seems to be a common error among hackers who assume that statute = law and don't consider the history of how courts have interpreted and circumscribed statutes over the years. Of course, this is als…

Regardless of these specific laws, the fact that one has the "freedom" to spend time and money fighting overreaching laws in court does not make them acceptable.

My point is that you don't have to do so to the extent that you're claiming because other people already have.

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a massive amount of economic documentation on wage stagnation just for starters. This is of course open to challenge or refutation, but bashing straw men does nothing to advance discussion.

Certainly true, although one can also point out that prices for a lot of things have gone down, with quality improvements in some arenas as well. It's tough to determine if wage stagnation has truly hurt the median American. I'm not sure why you're being downvoted for this post. I only bring up Trump because a lot of people argue his mere existence and rhetoric as bringing down their quality of life, which is a nonse…

I see what you're saying, although I disagree slightly on the rhetoric/policy thing. Rhetoric is a leading indicator and often guides practice before policy has been put in place. I think Latino people are objectively less safe from discrimination (both official and informal) than they were a few years ago, for example. There hasn't been any formal policy against Latino people, but stoking the fires of racial resentment emboldens bigots and has a chilling effect on the targets of bigotry, or those who might be mistaken for being targets.

This is offered to supplement rather than refute your point though.

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#88
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is so fast I use it to test my internet issues. It’ll be hard to throttle it.

Additionally, why would any ISP throttle a site with as little traffic as HN? Edit: I say "little" in comparison to the seriously high traffic sites like Netflix or Google.

I'm imagining a situation where Susan Startuper wants her HN fix 20x a day just like everyone, but refuses to pay for the "Hacker Channel" subscription with her ISP. She still gets access but only at 128kb/s. In some areas there's just one ISP and it doesn't offer the Hacker Channel. DNS resolution of news.ycombinator.com fails for all of its customers.

Max-Beer street would start looking pretty good, especially if Max-HN was also available there. I'd be interested to know what, if any, effect the demise of net neutrality would have on American service providers with foreign customers.

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offence by why are the founding fathers put on such a high pedestal in the U.S.? Everything they did had a reason but some of those reasons do not make sense anymore. The electoral college was put in place to give more saying to the south but that's not needed anymore. Gun ownership was put in place to protect from militias but again, that's not the case anymore, why keep all of these laws?

The electoral college is not obsolete. 50% of the US population lives in 10 states. Don't you think the other 40 states would like a say too? Or do you (mistakenly) believe the concerns of urban citizens are identical to those living in rural areas?

Why should their vote matter more because they have decided to live in an unpopular location?

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electoral college is not obsolete. 50% of the US population lives in 10 states. Don't you think the other 40 states would like a say too? Or do you (mistakenly) believe the concerns of urban citizens are identical to those living in rural areas?

Why should their vote matter more because they have decided to live in an unpopular location?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN