5 ms·

"Obamacare: repeal or keep?" with no preface. Unfortunately, it's not that easy, because if you change Obamacare to the Affordable Care Act, the answer changes

"Obamacare: repeal or keep?" with no preface. Unfortunately, it's not that easy, because if you change Obamacare to the Affordable Care Act, the answer changes. http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2013/09/26/FI10863c-release%209-25-13.pdf http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorial... Search "11a"

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dmd 9y ago
That's exactly the point being made.
danjoc 9y ago
It works on hacker news too: >Facebook should not be allowed to... "It is Facebook's business! Don't like it? Go start your own!" >Comcast should not be allowed to... "Right on! Stick it to those price gouging monopolists!"
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- bunnymancer 9y ago
  "Obamacare" - ACA Facebook - Comcast Not.. even similar
  - MBCook 9y ago
    How about: Obamacare:ACA is Xfinity:Comcast or (for many) Spectrum:Time Warner
- RickS 9y ago
  Customers have ample alternatives to facebook, and avoidance of that entire product category is not debilitating. Neither are true of comcast's internet services.
  - metaphorm 9y ago
    what is an alternative to facebook (besides abstention, which I agree is viable in this product category)? the network effect is overwhelmingly strong.
    - derefr 9y ago
      Depends on how you define the product category. What teenagers used Facebook for 10 years ago, they use Snapchat for today. But what adults used Facebook for 10 years ago, adults still use Facebook for today.
      - Cyph0n 9y ago
        Snapchat didn't exist 10 years ago, so I don't see your point.
        derefr 9y ago
        I was answering the parent's question: if by "alternative to Facebook" you mean that you want the thing that made teenagers use Facebook in 2007, then the answer is that Snapchat is a viable Facebook... somehow. (I'm not too clear on how exactly myself, but it seems to work for them.)
      - delazeur 9y ago
        > But what adults used Facebook for 10 years ago, adults still use Facebook for today. I am a twenty-something without a Facebook account (used to have one, though). IMO, there isn't much I would want to do with Facebook that I can't do with email or texting.
- ygaf 9y ago
  I upvote things like this because it's a rare challenge that will leave everyone more enlightened. (sounds sarcastic but isn't) The internet is a utility now, and America doesn't have a variety of providers. But facebook is also pretty ubiquitous, to the point of employers thinking you're weird if you don't have a page.
- s73ver 9y ago
  Two different companies with two different types of businesses. I support Facebook's right to decide what's on their site, buto condemn any attempt of Comcast to screw with internet traffic. Especially given the lack of competition in the ISP space, I don't believe they should be anything more than dumb pipes.
yammajr 9y ago
That's a little misleading. On the Obamacare question, only 11% said they didn't know what that was or that they didn't know enough about it, whereas on the Affordable Care Act question, 30% said that. If you normalize those results to people who claimed to know about it, there is a small difference, but it comes close to falling within the margin of error (3.4%). ~~~ Obamacare ACA ++ 15.9 14.2 + 17 17.1 = 14.7 15.7 - 12.5 18.5 -- 39.7 34.2
- mattnewton 9y ago
  I don't think that's misleading, I think that's almost exactly the GP's point. People don't just vote on the issues, usually they vote one abstraction higher on the brand and the rhetoric around it.
  - derefr 9y ago
    It'd be intriguing to see what people would think if you made them decide whether they agreed/disagreed with the language of the bill itself (or a summary—by, say, a supreme-court justice—of the implications of the bill), with no mention of the name of the bill.
    - schoen 9y ago
      Or, for non-bipartisan legislation, of the party that sponsored it.
    - mattnewton 9y ago
      Annecdotes from my life suggest there is no easier way to make someone angry with you.
      - derefr 9y ago
        The specific point where they get angry is when you do a sweeping reveal that, gasp, "it was [hated bill] after all!", though, right? The question doesn't have to come with a "punchline"; you can just poll people once for their opinions about named bills, and then again separately for their opinions about un-named bill contents, and correlate these, without ever revealing to the second group what bills the quoted language comes from. Or do you mean to suggest that people get angry immediately when they realize they're being asked for their genuine opinion about something which might turn out to be something they're expected to toe a party line about? If so, that's a very interesting effect, possibly a chilling effect to any potential for genuine informal conversation about these bills.
joantune 9y ago
A true testament to how much ill informed the American voter is

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dmd 9y ago

That's exactly the point being made.

danjoc 9y ago

It works on hacker news too: >Facebook should not be allowed to... "It is Facebook's business! Don't like it? Go start your own!" >Comcast should not be allowed to... "Right on! Stick it to those price gouging monopolists!"

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bunnymancer 9y ago
"Obamacare" - ACA Facebook - Comcast Not.. even similar
- MBCook 9y ago
  How about: Obamacare:ACA is Xfinity:Comcast or (for many) Spectrum:Time Warner
RickS 9y ago
Customers have ample alternatives to facebook, and avoidance of that entire product category is not debilitating. Neither are true of comcast's internet services.
- metaphorm 9y ago
  what is an alternative to facebook (besides abstention, which I agree is viable in this product category)? the network effect is overwhelmingly strong.
  - derefr 9y ago
    Depends on how you define the product category. What teenagers used Facebook for 10 years ago, they use Snapchat for today. But what adults used Facebook for 10 years ago, adults still use Facebook for today.
    - Cyph0n 9y ago
      Snapchat didn't exist 10 years ago, so I don't see your point.
      - derefr 9y ago
        I was answering the parent's question: if by "alternative to Facebook" you mean that you want the thing that made teenagers use Facebook in 2007, then the answer is that Snapchat is a viable Facebook... somehow. (I'm not too clear on how exactly myself, but it seems to work for them.)
    - delazeur 9y ago
      > But what adults used Facebook for 10 years ago, adults still use Facebook for today. I am a twenty-something without a Facebook account (used to have one, though). IMO, there isn't much I would want to do with Facebook that I can't do with email or texting.
ygaf 9y ago
I upvote things like this because it's a rare challenge that will leave everyone more enlightened. (sounds sarcastic but isn't) The internet is a utility now, and America doesn't have a variety of providers. But facebook is also pretty ubiquitous, to the point of employers thinking you're weird if you don't have a page.
s73ver 9y ago
Two different companies with two different types of businesses. I support Facebook's right to decide what's on their site, buto condemn any attempt of Comcast to screw with internet traffic. Especially given the lack of competition in the ISP space, I don't believe they should be anything more than dumb pipes.

yammajr 9y ago

That's a little misleading. On the Obamacare question, only 11% said they didn't know what that was or that they didn't know enough about it, whereas on the Affordable Care Act question, 30% said that. If you normalize those results to people who claimed to know about it, there is a small difference, but it comes close to falling within the margin of error (3.4%). ~~~ Obamacare ACA ++ 15.9 14.2 + 17 17.1 = 14.7 15.7 - 12.5 18.5 -- 39.7 34.2

mattnewton 9y ago
I don't think that's misleading, I think that's almost exactly the GP's point. People don't just vote on the issues, usually they vote one abstraction higher on the brand and the rhetoric around it.
- derefr 9y ago
  It'd be intriguing to see what people would think if you made them decide whether they agreed/disagreed with the language of the bill itself (or a summary—by, say, a supreme-court justice—of the implications of the bill), with no mention of the name of the bill.
  - schoen 9y ago
    Or, for non-bipartisan legislation, of the party that sponsored it.
  - mattnewton 9y ago
    Annecdotes from my life suggest there is no easier way to make someone angry with you.
    - derefr 9y ago
      The specific point where they get angry is when you do a sweeping reveal that, gasp, "it was [hated bill] after all!", though, right? The question doesn't have to come with a "punchline"; you can just poll people once for their opinions about named bills, and then again separately for their opinions about un-named bill contents, and correlate these, without ever revealing to the second group what bills the quoted language comes from. Or do you mean to suggest that people get angry immediately when they realize they're being asked for their genuine opinion about something which might turn out to be something they're expected to toe a party line about? If so, that's a very interesting effect, possibly a chilling effect to any potential for genuine informal conversation about these bills.

joantune 9y ago

A true testament to how much ill informed the American voter is