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

Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 125 posts

Re: Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

#81

Post by dontmindifido »

nickff wrote: post #27
alexqgb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the essence of contemporary lobbying. Most legislators can be persuaded with campaign contributions (the carrot) but those that can't get threatened with the stick, which comes in the form of a previously unheard of but suddenly flush primary opponent. Add gerrymandering to the mix, and this tactic becomes even harder to resist, since the effective sidelining of an opposing party means that no matter what else…

> "our systems is less like a democracy and more like an oligarchy" What if the problem is simply that very few voters care about the issue, and that even less would be willing to change their vote over this issue?

There is a disconnect between voting and policy that will need to be addressed before you are able to call it a democracy again.

Re: Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

#82

Post by unclebucknasty »

gibsonf1 wrote: post #54
juliangamble wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawrence Lessig is working on a people-power initiative to fix the problem of getting private finance out of elections: https://mayday.us/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_PAC

Eric Cantor proved that you can't buy an election with money. Ideas ultimately are what count in an election, and to the extent that any good ideas are removed from the public realm with this scheme, we all lose. The last thing we want is the government regulating money spent on political speech - the corruption potential is absolutely enormous - hence the First Amendment.

>Eric Cantor proved that you can't buy an election with money.

Muffy is a dog. Muffy cannot bark. Therefore, no dogs can bark.

Textbook logical fallacy.

Of course, politicians can and do buy elections. Today's process practically guarantees this will occur.

>to the extent that any good ideas are removed from the public realm with this scheme, we all lose.

There are other ways to ensure that good ideas come to the fore. And, as the ability to raise funds is not solely based on the quality of one's ideas, there is no feasible way that the democratic process can benefit from unrestrained campaign financing and rulings like Citizens United.

Re: Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

#83

Post by brianpgordon »

alexqgb wrote: post #17
harrystone wrote: post #10

I appreciate what Alexis is trying to do here but I hope he isn't assuming that the FCC just doesn't understand the problem. That's how this reads to me. Maybe the idea is to be diplomatic. I don't think the FCC cares. The FCC understands what is going on and it wants to do whatever is best for the FCC. The best thing for tech companies to do is to start destroying some political careers. That's the only thing the ma…

That's the essence of contemporary lobbying. Most legislators can be persuaded with campaign contributions (the carrot) but those that can't get threatened with the stick, which comes in the form of a previously unheard of but suddenly flush primary opponent. Add gerrymandering to the mix, and this tactic becomes even harder to resist, since the effective sidelining of an opposing party means that no matter what else…

I see that you also heard that episode of This American Life.

Re: Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

#84

Post by chasing »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #43

What about other forms of "neutrality"? The BBC is required to maintain "balance" over political issues. Should Google return the same results to all queries (ie no search bubble allowed?) Should Facebook (indeed any advertiser) be required to serve the same advert no matter what the profile of the incoming request? I mean Billboards are public broadcasts not private to me, why should online advertising be different?…

The word "neutrality" is confusing you.

"Net neutrality" isn't about content neutrality, exactly. It's about common carrier neutrality. Common carriers are essentially required to grant equal access to anyone who wants to use their service. They're neutral in that they can't say "no" to anyone. The idea being that it gives someone too much power to be able to block access to a critical service at their whim. (Say, for example, the phone company wanted to stop connecting phone calls between anyone they thought might be politically against their interests.)

"Balance" has nothing to do with it. If 90% of an ISPs users want to download pictures of cats, the ISP is not required to also force users to download an equal number of dog pics. Or to force content providers to offer an equal number of cat and dog photos.

Re: Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

#85

Post by alexqgb »

brianpgordon wrote: post #83
alexqgb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the essence of contemporary lobbying. Most legislators can be persuaded with campaign contributions (the carrot) but those that can't get threatened with the stick, which comes in the form of a previously unheard of but suddenly flush primary opponent. Add gerrymandering to the mix, and this tactic becomes even harder to resist, since the effective sidelining of an opposing party means that no matter what else…

I see that you also heard that episode of This American Life.

Actually I didn't. The mechanics of congressional corruption have been a long running interest of mine. But I think Ira Glass is great and if what I'm saying here is the essence of what he's saying too, that's a welcome development.

For the longest time, this stuff was of interests only to wonk's wonks. Now it's slowly seeping into common awareness. That's a vital step on the way to (eventual) change. If you've got a link to Ira's show, please don't hesitate to post it.

Re: Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

#86

Post by ArkyBeagle »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #82
gibsonf1 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eric Cantor proved that you can't buy an election with money. Ideas ultimately are what count in an election, and to the extent that any good ideas are removed from the public realm with this scheme, we all lose. The last thing we want is the government regulating money spent on political speech - the corruption potential is absolutely enormous - hence the First Amendment.

> Eric Cantor proved that you can't buy an election with money. Muffy is a dog. Muffy cannot bark. Therefore, no dogs can bark. Textbook logical fallacy. Of course, politicians can and do buy elections. Today's process practically guarantees this will occur. > to the extent that any good ideas are removed from the public realm with this scheme, we all lose. There are other ways to ensure that good ideas come to the f…

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/10/ten_thin...

"10 things we think we know, but really don't

1. Money buys the votes of the general public. (Maybe savvy donors just donate to candidates who will win in the hopes of influencing them.)" [edit: quote moved]

Money is necessary but not sufficient in order to become elected.

Politics is not about good ideas. Jim Crow laws existed for decades.

Re: Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

#87

Post by EGreg »

alexqgb wrote: post #17
harrystone wrote: post #10

I appreciate what Alexis is trying to do here but I hope he isn't assuming that the FCC just doesn't understand the problem. That's how this reads to me. Maybe the idea is to be diplomatic. I don't think the FCC cares. The FCC understands what is going on and it wants to do whatever is best for the FCC. The best thing for tech companies to do is to start destroying some political careers. That's the only thing the ma…

That's the essence of contemporary lobbying. Most legislators can be persuaded with campaign contributions (the carrot) but those that can't get threatened with the stick, which comes in the form of a previously unheard of but suddenly flush primary opponent. Add gerrymandering to the mix, and this tactic becomes even harder to resist, since the effective sidelining of an opposing party means that no matter what else…

I'm always curious as to why people think politicians are more motivated by reelection prospects that, say, their legacy or actually representing their personal views or convictions. I mean, I can understand why the ones that make it into office are the ones that fight hard to get elected in the first place, but once they are there, why wouldn't you expect a lot of them to take pride in actually representing their districts and really doing a good job in a representative democracy? I've always wondered why reelection is more important to these people supposedly then every other incentive! Can someone elaborate as to why this assumption is always made?

Re: Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

#88

Post by ollysb »

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #86
unclebucknasty wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eric Cantor proved that you can't buy an election with money. Muffy is a dog. Muffy cannot bark. Therefore, no dogs can bark. Textbook logical fallacy. Of course, politicians can and do buy elections. Today's process practically guarantees this will occur. > to the extent that any good ideas are removed from the public realm with this scheme, we all lose. There are other ways to ensure that good ideas come to the f…

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/10/ten_thin... "10 things we think we know, but really don't 1. Money buys the votes of the general public. (Maybe savvy donors just donate to candidates who will win in the hopes of influencing them.)" [edit: quote moved] Money is necessary but not sufficient in order to become elected. Politics is not about good ideas. Jim Crow laws existed for decades.

No one gets voted on by the public unless they've bought themselves into the vote in the first place. The public just gets to vote between the few dozen people that can raise enough money to get there.

Re: Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

#89

Post by pepr »

EGreg wrote: post #87
alexqgb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the essence of contemporary lobbying. Most legislators can be persuaded with campaign contributions (the carrot) but those that can't get threatened with the stick, which comes in the form of a previously unheard of but suddenly flush primary opponent. Add gerrymandering to the mix, and this tactic becomes even harder to resist, since the effective sidelining of an opposing party means that no matter what else…

I'm always curious as to why people think politicians are more motivated by reelection prospects that, say, their legacy or actually representing their personal views or convictions. I mean, I can understand why the ones that make it into office are the ones that fight hard to get elected in the first place, but once they are there, why wouldn't you expect a lot of them to take pride in actually representing their di…

I think it's simply self-preservation. If they don't get reelected, they lose their job. Few people want that. Would you lose your job over your views on issues like gun control? May you would, but a lot (maybe majority) of people wouldn't. Look at the stories of people in former communist countries. Majority of them didn't want to even risk their jobs over much, much more serious issues than gun control, NSA, or abortion.

Re: Y Combinator has filed an official comment with the FCC

#90

Post by Rapzid »

EGreg wrote: post #87
alexqgb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the essence of contemporary lobbying. Most legislators can be persuaded with campaign contributions (the carrot) but those that can't get threatened with the stick, which comes in the form of a previously unheard of but suddenly flush primary opponent. Add gerrymandering to the mix, and this tactic becomes even harder to resist, since the effective sidelining of an opposing party means that no matter what else…

I'm always curious as to why people think politicians are more motivated by reelection prospects that, say, their legacy or actually representing their personal views or convictions. I mean, I can understand why the ones that make it into office are the ones that fight hard to get elected in the first place, but once they are there, why wouldn't you expect a lot of them to take pride in actually representing their di…

Also, being a congressman is VERY prestigious. Just having the job and all the perks that come with it(money, status, security, influence, etc) is very desirable.
Post reply on HN