3 ms·

What you can do now to stop a political process that ended last November is: nothing. It's in the past. What you can do now to impact political processes in th

by loteck 9y ago

What you can do now to stop a political process that ended last November is: nothing. It's in the past. What you can do now to impact political processes in the near future (no policy is immutable, after all) is to work in your community to build consensus around policies you believe in, so that those policies are reflected in future decisions. I don't know when, but at some point we as a country of citizens got really bad at understanding this, it seems like!

sanderjd 9y ago
Exactly. The thing to do is to convince people you know that this is a bad idea. I think there are lots of pro-small-business Republicans who see this as a good reduction in regulation that will benefit the dynamic tech entrepreneurship sector, and who would be surprised at its unpopularity within the hotbed of exactly those entrepreneurial techies that is HN. Most Republican voters are no friend to regulatory capture, they just haven't been convinced that's what is going on in this administration.
- jay-anderson 9y ago
  Advice I've heard is to appeal to your audience's principles (moral reframing is the term I've heard it called: https://www.fastcompany.com/3067593/how-to-use-moral-reframing-to-persuade-conservatives-to-support-immigration https://www.fastcompany.com/3067593/how-to-use-moral-reframi...). In this case which principles that republicans/conservatives/etc. hold dear would provide good arguments for opposing this proposal? I don't think I have a good answer for that yet. Here are some ideas: - Personal Freedom: This change will allow ISPs to restrict or hobble sites you choose to go to. - Free market: This is allowing entrenched ISPs to restrict competition in what web sites we visit. Only the big players will be able to afford access artificially restricting the free market. - Purity: From what I understand this change hinges on the ability to define a broadband ISP as an information service rather than a telecommunication service. I could see an argument here that ISPs are attempting to use a loophole to skirt the law defining the service they provide. If anyone has ideas here I'd love to hear them.
nebabyte 9y ago
> no policy is immutable, after all - congress can preclude future congresses from revisiting issues - policies can become so entrenched as 'precedent' that they're seen as the 'right way' to do things our entire system is built against changing. That's why you don't see successful article V reform

by loteck 9y ago

sanderjd 9y ago

Exactly. The thing to do is to convince people you know that this is a bad idea. I think there are lots of pro-small-business Republicans who see this as a good reduction in regulation that will benefit the dynamic tech entrepreneurship sector, and who would be surprised at its unpopularity within the hotbed of exactly those entrepreneurial techies that is HN. Most Republican voters are no friend to regulatory capture, they just haven't been convinced that's what is going on in this administration.

jay-anderson 9y ago
Advice I've heard is to appeal to your audience's principles (moral reframing is the term I've heard it called: https://www.fastcompany.com/3067593/how-to-use-moral-reframing-to-persuade-conservatives-to-support-immigration https://www.fastcompany.com/3067593/how-to-use-moral-reframi...). In this case which principles that republicans/conservatives/etc. hold dear would provide good arguments for opposing this proposal? I don't think I have a good answer for that yet. Here are some ideas: - Personal Freedom: This change will allow ISPs to restrict or hobble sites you choose to go to. - Free market: This is allowing entrenched ISPs to restrict competition in what web sites we visit. Only the big players will be able to afford access artificially restricting the free market. - Purity: From what I understand this change hinges on the ability to define a broadband ISP as an information service rather than a telecommunication service. I could see an argument here that ISPs are attempting to use a loophole to skirt the law defining the service they provide. If anyone has ideas here I'd love to hear them.

nebabyte 9y ago

> no policy is immutable, after all - congress can preclude future congresses from revisiting issues - policies can become so entrenched as 'precedent' that they're seen as the 'right way' to do things our entire system is built against changing. That's why you don't see successful article V reform