5 ms·

We screwed up by not making this a campaign issue. Now we are going to pay the price. This is a freaking disaster. When I was at the Women's March talking wi

by bluetwo 10y ago

We screwed up by not making this a campaign issue. Now we are going to pay the price. This is a freaking disaster. When I was at the Women's March talking with friends, I said the smart thing to do was not react to every issue, but to pick one and focus. This is the issue I care the most about. I feel like we are way behind on fighting this. Million Techie March? If only. Going to have to figure out what the right actions are regarding this issue.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
astrodust 10y ago
A) Emails. B) Emails. C) Emails. D) Emails. E) Benghazi. Also emails. This campaign was a train-wreck of bullshit. There was no time to talk about actual issues.
- sverige 10y ago
  The people who voted for Trump don't really give a shit about the FCC or net neutrality. Sure, everyone knows that the big media companies and ISPs are horrible, but on the list of horrible things that need to be changed, it falls down the list pretty fast.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    That's the thing. So long as they can get their cable packages at a reasonably stupid price they're willing to go along with it. I'm not sure if there's a lot of correlating data but the Trump core supporter group does seem to be older (50+) and not always the first to adopt any new technology. They read newspapers, they watch TV news, they use Facebook, they have wired home phones, basically things that the FCC won't really alter. What removing Network Neutrality does is destroy the next generation of services, something that they have no vested interest in. It's almost as if they'd gladly pay $50/mo. in cable/telephone fees if their taxes went down by $200/mo. The thing is, that $50/mo. increase really squeezes out those in the lower income brackets or those on fixed incomes. They don't pay a lot of tax to see any offsets. But fuck them, right?
- avtar 10y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13576038 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13576038 That story is about Twitter but the pattern seems to be the same post-election: more noise, less signal.
- kevando 10y ago
  DNC wants to eliminate a free internet as well.
  - grzm 10y ago
    The issue of free internet and net neutrality are distinct. Is net neutrality important to you? If so, support net neutrality. Don't let partisan politics muddy the waters.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    That's weird since HRC's campaign explicitly backed net neutrality: > Hillary believes that the government has an obligation to protect the open internet. The open internet is not only essential for consumer choice and civic empowerment – it is a cornerstone of start-up innovation and creative disruption in technology markets. Hillary strongly supports the FCC decision under the Obama Administration to adopt strong network neutrality rules that deemed internet service providers to be common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. These rules now ban broadband discrimination, prohibit pay-for-play favoritism, and establish oversight of “interconnection” relationships between providers. Hillary would defend these rules in court and continue to enforce them. She also maintains her opposition to policies that unnecessarily restrict the free flow of data online –such as the high profile fight over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Oh, here comes the false equivalencies.
- abandonliberty 10y ago
  All campaigns necessarily are, particularly in the first past the post voting system. I recommend CGP Grey's rules for rulers and his pieces on voting systems. The mechanisms of Washington exist to keep power in the hands of a predictable few, and they've worked on increasing their power. They never imagined someone like Trump could show up and take all their toys.
rch 10y ago
https://www.marchforscience.com https://www.marchforscience.com I'm not sure what other details to add, but I plan on taking part.
danielpatrick 10y ago
I was thinking about this while I was at the women's march. The only issues I didn't see represented there were the two important tech issues: data privacy net neutrality My plan is to make a sign for the next march that urges action on those specifically. Doesn't feel like much but maybe it gets on the news. Maybe 500 other people see it and associate it with issues they care about. And if you host a million techie march, I'll join.
xnu 10y ago
> I feel like we are way behind on fighting this. Million Techie March? If only. That's a war that common people will have to fight by themselves, since a lot of techies is against any kind of government regulation. Same with data privacy laws: those techies are against NSA, but because of ideology a lot of them don't want the government stopping Google, FB, etc from collecting and selling our data. What we can do is spread awareness.
mcguire 10y ago
The problem with that is that the constituency for most issues is pretty small. You would have to be NRA-level vocal to get any movement.

by bluetwo 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

astrodust 10y ago

A) Emails. B) Emails. C) Emails. D) Emails. E) Benghazi. Also emails. This campaign was a train-wreck of bullshit. There was no time to talk about actual issues.

sverige 10y ago
The people who voted for Trump don't really give a shit about the FCC or net neutrality. Sure, everyone knows that the big media companies and ISPs are horrible, but on the list of horrible things that need to be changed, it falls down the list pretty fast.
- astrodust 10y ago
  That's the thing. So long as they can get their cable packages at a reasonably stupid price they're willing to go along with it. I'm not sure if there's a lot of correlating data but the Trump core supporter group does seem to be older (50+) and not always the first to adopt any new technology. They read newspapers, they watch TV news, they use Facebook, they have wired home phones, basically things that the FCC won't really alter. What removing Network Neutrality does is destroy the next generation of services, something that they have no vested interest in. It's almost as if they'd gladly pay $50/mo. in cable/telephone fees if their taxes went down by $200/mo. The thing is, that $50/mo. increase really squeezes out those in the lower income brackets or those on fixed incomes. They don't pay a lot of tax to see any offsets. But fuck them, right?
avtar 10y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13576038 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13576038 That story is about Twitter but the pattern seems to be the same post-election: more noise, less signal.
kevando 10y ago
DNC wants to eliminate a free internet as well.
- grzm 10y ago
  The issue of free internet and net neutrality are distinct. Is net neutrality important to you? If so, support net neutrality. Don't let partisan politics muddy the waters.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  That's weird since HRC's campaign explicitly backed net neutrality: > Hillary believes that the government has an obligation to protect the open internet. The open internet is not only essential for consumer choice and civic empowerment – it is a cornerstone of start-up innovation and creative disruption in technology markets. Hillary strongly supports the FCC decision under the Obama Administration to adopt strong network neutrality rules that deemed internet service providers to be common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. These rules now ban broadband discrimination, prohibit pay-for-play favoritism, and establish oversight of “interconnection” relationships between providers. Hillary would defend these rules in court and continue to enforce them. She also maintains her opposition to policies that unnecessarily restrict the free flow of data online –such as the high profile fight over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).
- astrodust 10y ago
  Oh, here comes the false equivalencies.
abandonliberty 10y ago
All campaigns necessarily are, particularly in the first past the post voting system. I recommend CGP Grey's rules for rulers and his pieces on voting systems. The mechanisms of Washington exist to keep power in the hands of a predictable few, and they've worked on increasing their power. They never imagined someone like Trump could show up and take all their toys.

rch 10y ago

https://www.marchforscience.com https://www.marchforscience.com I'm not sure what other details to add, but I plan on taking part.

danielpatrick 10y ago

I was thinking about this while I was at the women's march. The only issues I didn't see represented there were the two important tech issues: data privacy net neutrality My plan is to make a sign for the next march that urges action on those specifically. Doesn't feel like much but maybe it gets on the news. Maybe 500 other people see it and associate it with issues they care about. And if you host a million techie march, I'll join.

xnu 10y ago

> I feel like we are way behind on fighting this. Million Techie March? If only. That's a war that common people will have to fight by themselves, since a lot of techies is against any kind of government regulation. Same with data privacy laws: those techies are against NSA, but because of ideology a lot of them don't want the government stopping Google, FB, etc from collecting and selling our data. What we can do is spread awareness.

mcguire 10y ago

The problem with that is that the constituency for most issues is pretty small. You would have to be NRA-level vocal to get any movement.