4 ms·

Thank you for at least trying to enter the discussion. I hope those who read this don't downvote because they, like me, disagree with you. Voting on comments i

• s73ver 9y ago
  "I hope those who read this don't downvote because they, like me, disagree with you. Voting on comments is about pushing productive conversation to the top. I, for one, would like to open the doors in this echo chamber." I'm sorry, but when the same poor arguments are used time and again, it stops being productive.
  • thomastjeffery 9y ago
    > when the same poor arguments are used time and again, it stops being productive. That's true, but the same can be said about most comments in favor of keeping net neutrality (unless they bring something new to the conversation). I wanted to seek out discussion from those who do not share my opinion, rather than simple affirmation of my opinion. Then again, maybe there really is nothing for them to say. That being said, I probably shouldn't have mentioned downvotes in the first place. I suppose this (from the hackernews guidelines) should apply to others' downvotes too: > Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. EDIT: I just noticed my ambiguous usage of "read". I meant it in past tense, not present. Therefore, that sentence was in referral to the parent comment being downvoted, not my own comment. I hope that is clear now.
    • dredmorbius 9y ago
      So long as the arguments in favour are themselves sensible, there's no hazard to repeating the truth. As for downvoting: I generally don't comment on how my own comments get moderated, but if I feel that the Hive Mind is responding poorly to something specific, I may well mention it. Not often, but where it seems particularly pointed. Generally not, however, preemptively. That's a bit too close to baiting.
• pitaj 9y ago
  > Thank you for at least trying to enter the discussion. Thanks you for being rational and kind and not blindly discounting me. > I have not heard a single argument of how dismantling privacy protections (via S. J. Res 34) or net neutrality (Title II Communications Act 1934) can in any way accomplish, or even assist in this. The idea is not that those regulations in particular are bad. In fact, I think starting where Pai started with the removal of those regulations was a bad move, since they're already there. However, regulations are what they are, and any rule that a company must comply with is a relatively fixed legal expense and therefore a barrier to entry. This leads to any amount of regulation being a larger burden on startup firms than on large firms where these legal expenses are less relevant among their total expenses. > I'm fine with that, but I haven't seen or heard of any bill designed to accomplish that. Have you? No, I haven't. And that was one of the main issues I had with all of these Democrats who championed the previous FCC actions. People warned them that this was at most a temporary measure but instead of cementing it in legislation, they left it up to the president. I wish there was legislation, but it seems like the legislators think this issue should remain within the FCC. > It's also worth mentioning that, where possible, I prefer state-level legislation, but that federal-level regulation is inherently needed to enforce net-neutrality. Can you expand on why you think federal-level regulation is necessary, particularly when compared with only state regulation? > I do not see it as a reason to abandon the regulation. I agree. > What regulations are piling up? It's not just regulations that pile up, but also past policy decisions. Starting with making AT&T a monopoly in the first place, continuing through the Clinton era regulations, on through now applying decades-old regulations to the internet. Then you have the capture of local municipalities by large ISPs which allows them to control when new companies can access infrastructure, get permits, etc. Google Fiber had the largest problems with this last part, which is where I think people should start if they want to increase competition. > I don't see privacy protections, or net neutrality as unnecessary, or even detrimental. Right, neither do I. I agree that privacy protections and net neutrality are necessary for an open internet, but I also believe that those will be provided to consumers naturally through a competitive ISP market. That's why I don't support removing them first, and I also don't support adding them in the first place. > I have been honestly searching for an argument (any argument!) against net neutrality, but I have not found one. There is no argument against net neutrality. In my point of view, nobody is arguing over whether net neutrality is good. People are arguing over which way to best get it. (of course there are exceptions to the rule, like some ISP shills and very ignorant people) > Ajit Pai really is a corporate shill I, of course, have no idea what Pai's true motivations are, but it seems to me that he could support removing these regulations without being a corporate shill. I think he's just following his principles. There's a ReasonTV interview[1] with him that's actually pretty informative on what his true positions are, I suggest you watch it. I'd like to know your opinion about it. > 6 big ISPs really do have way more legal clout than they should I think they do have too much power over governments at every level which is why I'm automatically skeptical of any policy effort. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28