4 ms·

The headline is a huge overstatement relative to what the press release says, which itself is scaremongering relative to what the bill itself says.

542458 11y ago
I don't know about that - The legal criticisms of it are pretty severe, and it's bad enough that the president has promised to veto it if it comes to his desk. EDIT: Engadget's review is much more damning. It would pretty much remove any enforcement power the FCC has re: net neutrality. It's a pretty big deal. http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/13/president-veto-hr-2666-bill/ http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/13/president-veto-hr-2666-bi...
- themartorana 11y ago
  If the police are in your way, remove the police.
criley2 11y ago
>s, which itself is scaremongering relative to what the bill itself says I hate that valid criticism of a bills effects as described by lawyers and legal experts is trashed as "scaremongering". It's not scaremongering and just because the bill appears benign to your laymans eyes does not mean it is in fact benign in a court or regulators eyes.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Legal analysis can be in an academic context or an advocacy context. When a lawyer is advocating for a client, he's giving the most one-sided presentation that he can make in good faith. The EFF's analysis is generally of the advocacy sort. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's important to recognize that.
  - SEMW 11y ago
    > When a lawyer is advocating for a client, he's giving the most one-sided presentation that he can make in good faith. I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. While the context isn't academic legal analysis, the EFF has no reason to advocate against the bill unless they sincerely believe it to be bad, based on the legal advice they've been given.
    - tacos 11y ago
      Any activist organization that accepts donations has a motivation to keep their name in the news. And all of these types of organizations overstep on occasion. In this case I found the EFF to be on point whereas the Engadget article reads like a BoingBoing post on a bender.
      - themartorana 11y ago
        Might be because the thought of a consumer ISP being paid from all sides and deciding for you what is important on the Internet is terrifying and really, really is the end of the Internet as we know and love it.
        tacos 11y ago
        When a "terrifying" bill that "really is the end of the Internet as we know and love it" generates a whopping total of 60 comments on HN, then you've made my point for me. I'm not blaming the EFF; I'm not saying Citizens shouldn't rise up. I'm stating that the EFF needs to find an alternate strategy because constantly crying wolf fatigues even their most hardcore audience.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      That's not the point. A lawyer advocating for a client will often genuinely believe in their cause. They're still advocating. Unlike an academic article, the lawyer's brief will be entirely one-sided; the lawyer will leave out valid, well-supported arguments that don't strengthen their case.
  - 11y ago

542458 11y ago

I don't know about that - The legal criticisms of it are pretty severe, and it's bad enough that the president has promised to veto it if it comes to his desk. EDIT: Engadget's review is much more damning. It would pretty much remove any enforcement power the FCC has re: net neutrality. It's a pretty big deal. http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/13/president-veto-hr-2666-bill/ http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/13/president-veto-hr-2666-bi...

themartorana 11y ago
If the police are in your way, remove the police.

criley2 11y ago

>s, which itself is scaremongering relative to what the bill itself says I hate that valid criticism of a bills effects as described by lawyers and legal experts is trashed as "scaremongering". It's not scaremongering and just because the bill appears benign to your laymans eyes does not mean it is in fact benign in a court or regulators eyes.

rayiner 11y ago
Legal analysis can be in an academic context or an advocacy context. When a lawyer is advocating for a client, he's giving the most one-sided presentation that he can make in good faith. The EFF's analysis is generally of the advocacy sort. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's important to recognize that.
- SEMW 11y ago
  > When a lawyer is advocating for a client, he's giving the most one-sided presentation that he can make in good faith. I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. While the context isn't academic legal analysis, the EFF has no reason to advocate against the bill unless they sincerely believe it to be bad, based on the legal advice they've been given.
  - tacos 11y ago
    Any activist organization that accepts donations has a motivation to keep their name in the news. And all of these types of organizations overstep on occasion. In this case I found the EFF to be on point whereas the Engadget article reads like a BoingBoing post on a bender.
    - themartorana 11y ago
      Might be because the thought of a consumer ISP being paid from all sides and deciding for you what is important on the Internet is terrifying and really, really is the end of the Internet as we know and love it.
      - tacos 11y ago
        When a "terrifying" bill that "really is the end of the Internet as we know and love it" generates a whopping total of 60 comments on HN, then you've made my point for me. I'm not blaming the EFF; I'm not saying Citizens shouldn't rise up. I'm stating that the EFF needs to find an alternate strategy because constantly crying wolf fatigues even their most hardcore audience.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    That's not the point. A lawyer advocating for a client will often genuinely believe in their cause. They're still advocating. Unlike an academic article, the lawyer's brief will be entirely one-sided; the lawyer will leave out valid, well-supported arguments that don't strengthen their case.
- 11y ago