6 ms·

No, this is a consequence of the republicans being in power.

by aanm1988 10y ago

pnathan 10y ago
The Democrats also have policies that are... poor, particularly around the internet. This is a cross-party problem.
- nikkwong 10y ago
  Care to elaborate?
  - simplyluke 10y ago
    Well, I'd encourage you to look into the expansion of the NSA under the obama administration and how his administration responded to whistle blowers who leaked information related to that expansion.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  Given this vote was split along party lines this smells of whataboutism.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    Whataboutism is irrelevant. What matters is whether his assertion is true: are both parties' policies toward the Internet a problem?
    - warlox 10y ago
      No, what matters is tradeoffs. Is one party's set of policies far more problematic than those of the other party?
      - alphapapa 10y ago
        "The lesser of two evils" is an important consideration in who to support politically, but the "absolute values" are even moreso--otherwise you're merely being blown about by trends, only ever getting closer to good policy by chance, rather than actively pursuing good policy. If neither party's policies are good, that absolutely matters.
        warlox 10y ago
        In the previous election we had a milquetoast liberal running against a ur-fascist demagogue. It is clear which one was the lesser of two evils, and now we are seeing the effects of America's choice in this bill and others. If Hillary Clinton was president or if the Democrats had control of one chamber of Congress, this bill never would have passed.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        > It is clear which one was the lesser of two evils Obviously there is significant disagreement on that issue. > If Hillary Clinton was president or if the Democrats had control of one chamber of Congress, this bill never would have passed. Yes, because the left is happy for government agencies run by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to continually enlarge their regulatory domain. Other people consider that a bad idea in general. And if that had happened, FCC regulations would control our privacy--after they would have taken effect, over a year from now--regulations which are not law and can be changed by unelected FCC bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the people. I'm no fan of Congress, but it's definitely better for this to be controlled by federal law rather than an agency regulation.
        warlox 10y ago
        Sometimes the outcomes are better when appointed technocrats to decide things, particularly when the people are manifestly incapable of making good decisions. Of course, there is something to be said for allowing people to screw up their own government irreparably and be forced to suffer the consequences.
  - pnathan 10y ago
    This vote had a bad result, and the Rs were pushing the bad thing. But a bit of puttering around older newspaper articles reveals the Democrats have also done their fair share of problematic votes here. Obama's Administration was not particularly sympathetic to these sorts of concerns, although more so than the current Administration. The EFF had more than a few things to say. I don't mean to exculpate the Rs or go "ruh ruh whatabout those bad Democrats". Lack of understanding of consequences and technology is a cross-party issue, and each party has performs their ignorance differently. I think that part of this is age, as well as the age of the vested interests. Also, personally, I wish you'd have checked my comments. I am no GOP evangelist/apologist. I'm trying to hew to the truth and be fair.
    - aanm1988 10y ago
      The rules in place were put in by the Obama administration FCC. The same people who setup net neutrality rules that are waiting to be gutted. "I'm trying to be fair" is exactly the problem with whataboutism.
      - pnathan 10y ago
        whataboutism was famously used as a deflective defense to redirect conversation from the USSR's (major) issues to the US (not quite as major) issues. But I think I'm done with this conversation. Thank you for your time.
    - abritinthebay 10y ago
      > I don't mean to exculpate the Rs or go "ruh ruh whatabout those bad Democrats". Well... good. It did read a bit that way however. But you know, tone, text, internet, etc
  - BearGoesChirp 10y ago
    We cannot toss out 8 years of history by the results of two votes in Congress.

No, this is a consequence of the republicans being in power.

pnathan 10y ago

The Democrats also have policies that are... poor, particularly around the internet. This is a cross-party problem.

nikkwong 10y ago
Care to elaborate?
- simplyluke 10y ago
  Well, I'd encourage you to look into the expansion of the NSA under the obama administration and how his administration responded to whistle blowers who leaked information related to that expansion.
abritinthebay 10y ago
Given this vote was split along party lines this smells of whataboutism.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  Whataboutism is irrelevant. What matters is whether his assertion is true: are both parties' policies toward the Internet a problem?
  - warlox 10y ago
    No, what matters is tradeoffs. Is one party's set of policies far more problematic than those of the other party?
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      "The lesser of two evils" is an important consideration in who to support politically, but the "absolute values" are even moreso--otherwise you're merely being blown about by trends, only ever getting closer to good policy by chance, rather than actively pursuing good policy. If neither party's policies are good, that absolutely matters.
      - warlox 10y ago
        In the previous election we had a milquetoast liberal running against a ur-fascist demagogue. It is clear which one was the lesser of two evils, and now we are seeing the effects of America's choice in this bill and others. If Hillary Clinton was president or if the Democrats had control of one chamber of Congress, this bill never would have passed.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        > It is clear which one was the lesser of two evils Obviously there is significant disagreement on that issue. > If Hillary Clinton was president or if the Democrats had control of one chamber of Congress, this bill never would have passed. Yes, because the left is happy for government agencies run by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to continually enlarge their regulatory domain. Other people consider that a bad idea in general. And if that had happened, FCC regulations would control our privacy--after they would have taken effect, over a year from now--regulations which are not law and can be changed by unelected FCC bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the people. I'm no fan of Congress, but it's definitely better for this to be controlled by federal law rather than an agency regulation.
        warlox 10y ago
        Sometimes the outcomes are better when appointed technocrats to decide things, particularly when the people are manifestly incapable of making good decisions. Of course, there is something to be said for allowing people to screw up their own government irreparably and be forced to suffer the consequences.
- pnathan 10y ago
  This vote had a bad result, and the Rs were pushing the bad thing. But a bit of puttering around older newspaper articles reveals the Democrats have also done their fair share of problematic votes here. Obama's Administration was not particularly sympathetic to these sorts of concerns, although more so than the current Administration. The EFF had more than a few things to say. I don't mean to exculpate the Rs or go "ruh ruh whatabout those bad Democrats". Lack of understanding of consequences and technology is a cross-party issue, and each party has performs their ignorance differently. I think that part of this is age, as well as the age of the vested interests. Also, personally, I wish you'd have checked my comments. I am no GOP evangelist/apologist. I'm trying to hew to the truth and be fair.
  - aanm1988 10y ago
    The rules in place were put in by the Obama administration FCC. The same people who setup net neutrality rules that are waiting to be gutted. "I'm trying to be fair" is exactly the problem with whataboutism.
    - pnathan 10y ago
      whataboutism was famously used as a deflective defense to redirect conversation from the USSR's (major) issues to the US (not quite as major) issues. But I think I'm done with this conversation. Thank you for your time.
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    > I don't mean to exculpate the Rs or go "ruh ruh whatabout those bad Democrats". Well... good. It did read a bit that way however. But you know, tone, text, internet, etc
- BearGoesChirp 10y ago
  We cannot toss out 8 years of history by the results of two votes in Congress.