8 ms·

Thats how democracy dies. It doesn't have to change it explicitly, it has to incite tact, and leave a trail. Every day, we are making history. If we do not spea

Thats how democracy dies. It doesn't have to change it explicitly, it has to incite tact, and leave a trail. Every day, we are making history. If we do not speak, then the future will think we weren't talking.

ccvannorman 9y ago
Corollary: The more people that comment, the higher the budget of the think-tank whose job it is to make counter-comments (either via bot or shill). It's a difficult fight when any effort you put forwards can be matched with a few dollars.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  Dollars have the disadvantage that they can only be coarsely targetted. A timely, laser focused argument will always beat whatever keywords Kellyanne Conway happens to be spamming millions of viewers with today. Campaigns at that scale just can't scratch the same itch. The trouble is laser targetted arguments take much more time to formulate, so you have to use them sparingly. The tau comes in handy.
tn135 9y ago
Sorry. I do not think people commenting on some document has anything to do with democracy that might be mob or troll rule but it isn't democracy (not that I am a fan of democracy either). Personally I agree with FCC's stand and keeping governments and elites who want everyone else to pay more for their "fair use" out of the equation looks like a good thing for me. I don't have time to comment on that document because I agree with administration.
- nerdponx 9y ago
  It's a shame you're being downvoted for sharing your opinion. Personally I think you're delusional, but it's not like downvotes are going to change your mind.
  - sdoering 9y ago
    Thanks for being a voice of reason and free speech. I also do not agree in the slightest with the OP, but non the less being down-voted to hell is a bit harsh imho. That is not how democracy should work. We should counter his (missing) arguments. Sadly he/she/it did not provide anything substantial on that one could base a valid argument.
    - croon 9y ago
      > Thanks for being a voice of reason and free speech. I also do not agree in the slightest with the OP, but non the less being down-voted to hell is a bit harsh imho. > We should counter his (missing) arguments. Sadly he/she/it did not provide anything substantial on that one could base a valid argument. The last part is really the point though, isn't it? "Free speech" is continually misused, in the sense that people expect everyone else to listen to mad ramblings. Presenting a "counterpoint" (on whichever platform/venue/outlet) in the quest to be fair when the original point is simply a fact isn't fair coverage, it's pandering to lunacy.
    - mrout 9y ago
      Sorry for the harsh language, but that's fucking ridiculous in this context. Free speech? Free speech doesn't exist so that people can make ridiculous comments like 'taking comments from the public into account when making policy is mob rule'. Free speech exists so that people can make those comments on policy and have them heard.
      - nerdponx 9y ago
        You're wrong too --- but only in my opinion. What free speech really "exists for" is hard to pin down[1]. It's actually an interesting legal perspective. These are unelected officials, appointed by an indirectly elected official (albeit confirmed by directly elected ones) interacting directly with the public. It's a bizarre reversal of the Jeffersonian republic, like a direct democracy nested deep inside a republic. The fact that the poster is totally wrong does not alone make the idea worth censoring. If you don't listen to people who disagree with you, how can you hope to engage them in debate? Case in point: you got downvoted so many times you were [flagged] and [dead], and I vouched for you. 1) You didn't deserve it. 2) I wanted to bring you back so I could make the point that, under your idea of free speech, you'd still be [dead]. [1]: https://www.thefire.org/a-reminder-about-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.thefire.org/a-reminder-about-shouting-fire-in-a-...
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  > Sorry. I do not think people commenting on some document has anything to do with democracy What would have something to do with democracy, then?
  - tn135 9y ago
    Voting.
astrodust 9y ago
Being cynical about the effectiveness of the agency is fine so long as that doesn't translate into apathy. It should be a motivator to hold the agency accountable, to get it to do the job for which it was created. Write. Call. Show up at meetings. Pressure them back in line.
dang 9y ago
Please don't post generic political rhetoric here. It might be good for rallying people to a cause, but HN threads are for substantive discussion, and the Venn diagram of those two things has little overlap. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14338291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14338291 and marked it off-topic.
- devwastaken 9y ago
  The thread still has plenty of 'rhetoric' and opinionated pieces, including the one I was responding to. My post clearly stated that democracy cannot be sustained by a populace that thinks it has no say and history cannot be used if it doesn't exist. I would think hard before labeling that theory as 'rhetoric'.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

ccvannorman 9y ago

Corollary: The more people that comment, the higher the budget of the think-tank whose job it is to make counter-comments (either via bot or shill). It's a difficult fight when any effort you put forwards can be matched with a few dollars.

erikpukinskis 9y ago
Dollars have the disadvantage that they can only be coarsely targetted. A timely, laser focused argument will always beat whatever keywords Kellyanne Conway happens to be spamming millions of viewers with today. Campaigns at that scale just can't scratch the same itch. The trouble is laser targetted arguments take much more time to formulate, so you have to use them sparingly. The tau comes in handy.

tn135 9y ago

Sorry. I do not think people commenting on some document has anything to do with democracy that might be mob or troll rule but it isn't democracy (not that I am a fan of democracy either). Personally I agree with FCC's stand and keeping governments and elites who want everyone else to pay more for their "fair use" out of the equation looks like a good thing for me. I don't have time to comment on that document because I agree with administration.

nerdponx 9y ago
It's a shame you're being downvoted for sharing your opinion. Personally I think you're delusional, but it's not like downvotes are going to change your mind.
- sdoering 9y ago
  Thanks for being a voice of reason and free speech. I also do not agree in the slightest with the OP, but non the less being down-voted to hell is a bit harsh imho. That is not how democracy should work. We should counter his (missing) arguments. Sadly he/she/it did not provide anything substantial on that one could base a valid argument.
  - croon 9y ago
    > Thanks for being a voice of reason and free speech. I also do not agree in the slightest with the OP, but non the less being down-voted to hell is a bit harsh imho. > We should counter his (missing) arguments. Sadly he/she/it did not provide anything substantial on that one could base a valid argument. The last part is really the point though, isn't it? "Free speech" is continually misused, in the sense that people expect everyone else to listen to mad ramblings. Presenting a "counterpoint" (on whichever platform/venue/outlet) in the quest to be fair when the original point is simply a fact isn't fair coverage, it's pandering to lunacy.
  - mrout 9y ago
    Sorry for the harsh language, but that's fucking ridiculous in this context. Free speech? Free speech doesn't exist so that people can make ridiculous comments like 'taking comments from the public into account when making policy is mob rule'. Free speech exists so that people can make those comments on policy and have them heard.
    - nerdponx 9y ago
      You're wrong too --- but only in my opinion. What free speech really "exists for" is hard to pin down[1]. It's actually an interesting legal perspective. These are unelected officials, appointed by an indirectly elected official (albeit confirmed by directly elected ones) interacting directly with the public. It's a bizarre reversal of the Jeffersonian republic, like a direct democracy nested deep inside a republic. The fact that the poster is totally wrong does not alone make the idea worth censoring. If you don't listen to people who disagree with you, how can you hope to engage them in debate? Case in point: you got downvoted so many times you were [flagged] and [dead], and I vouched for you. 1) You didn't deserve it. 2) I wanted to bring you back so I could make the point that, under your idea of free speech, you'd still be [dead]. [1]: https://www.thefire.org/a-reminder-about-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.thefire.org/a-reminder-about-shouting-fire-in-a-...
loup-vaillant 9y ago
> Sorry. I do not think people commenting on some document has anything to do with democracy What would have something to do with democracy, then?
- tn135 9y ago
  Voting.

astrodust 9y ago

Being cynical about the effectiveness of the agency is fine so long as that doesn't translate into apathy. It should be a motivator to hold the agency accountable, to get it to do the job for which it was created. Write. Call. Show up at meetings. Pressure them back in line.

dang 9y ago

Please don't post generic political rhetoric here. It might be good for rallying people to a cause, but HN threads are for substantive discussion, and the Venn diagram of those two things has little overlap. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14338291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14338291 and marked it off-topic.

devwastaken 9y ago
The thread still has plenty of 'rhetoric' and opinionated pieces, including the one I was responding to. My post clearly stated that democracy cannot be sustained by a populace that thinks it has no say and history cannot be used if it doesn't exist. I would think hard before labeling that theory as 'rhetoric'.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]