5 ms·

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

by 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-...
      - mrout 9y ago
        I didn't say that it wouldn't be protected as free speech by the law, or that it wasn't 'valid speech'. I'm saying that the intent of free speech is not that being able to say whatever you like without consequence is an inherently good thing, but that peoples' abilities to comment on proposed laws (and comment on politics, current events, policy, law, statute, government and non-governmental action etc.) without fear of retribution is good for society. It was implied that (implying that (being silenced by others in a discussion forum because you hold the view that people giving their opinions is 'mob rule') is a bad thing) was upholding the principles of free speech. Again, I think this is silly. I don't want to engage someone that views public participation in democracy as a bad thing. That's a ridiculous view, and I happily would downvote him if I had enough karma to see the downvote button.
- tn135 9y ago
  I am the OP. I don't even bother to look at downvotes and the fact that an opinion is unpopular does not really say anything about the merits of the argument. I am pretty sure HN crowd will hound anyone who claims to agree with FCC on this point which I do.
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.

by tn135 9y ago

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-...
    - mrout 9y ago
      I didn't say that it wouldn't be protected as free speech by the law, or that it wasn't 'valid speech'. I'm saying that the intent of free speech is not that being able to say whatever you like without consequence is an inherently good thing, but that peoples' abilities to comment on proposed laws (and comment on politics, current events, policy, law, statute, government and non-governmental action etc.) without fear of retribution is good for society. It was implied that (implying that (being silenced by others in a discussion forum because you hold the view that people giving their opinions is 'mob rule') is a bad thing) was upholding the principles of free speech. Again, I think this is silly. I don't want to engage someone that views public participation in democracy as a bad thing. That's a ridiculous view, and I happily would downvote him if I had enough karma to see the downvote button.
tn135 9y ago
I am the OP. I don't even bother to look at downvotes and the fact that an opinion is unpopular does not really say anything about the merits of the argument. I am pretty sure HN crowd will hound anyone who claims to agree with FCC on this point which I do.

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.