5 ms·

This article buys way too much into the concept of "democratic efficiency", that "being heard" leads directly to government action, and therefore lack of action

This article buys way too much into the concept of "democratic efficiency", that "being heard" leads directly to government action, and therefore lack of action (or the wrong kind of action) is _caused by_ a lack of "being heard". This is so, so, so wrong, and is just further setting the stage for net neutrality to be repealed and for the blame to be cast at activists' feet. Net neutrality is one of the most popular policies in recent memory, and for it to be constantly assaulted by the same handful of large ISPs is a perfect encapsulation of why capitalism is failing our society. We're going to get tiered Internet not because the "Day of Action" was unsuccessful, but because there is no way that Ajit Pai would have satisfied himself with anything except a repeal of net neutrality. Do you really think he's going to sit there reading the comments, and think, "I have been wrong my entire career!" The issue at hand is clearly about a government that is utterly unresponsive to its people.

ajross 9y ago
Pai's immediate predecessor literally flipped his position on net neutrality, owing largely (at least as is commonly assumed) to political pressure from the White House, itself driven by clearly expressed sentiment among the democratic base. Absent the earlier burst of activism, it's unlikely the Obama administration would have cared enough to lean on Wheeler. That doesn't mean that it's going to work on Trump and Pai in the same way, but arguing that activism "doesn't work" based on this one data point is silly. It does work, sometimes. The details matter.
- chestervonwinch 9y ago
  There's a number of studies showing how legislation doesn't represent the preferences of constituents. See for more info, represent.us or the Anti-corruption act [1]. The last net neutrality outcry was unique in that nearly every major internet-based company joined in the protest. I don't think I've ever seen that happen for any other issue before. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Corruption_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Corruption_Act
godelski 9y ago
I think with politics taking such a hard line position on reducing neutrality that we really have to just bypass the politics of it all together. If we look at history, it would suggest that this is the major way to avoid a lot of these issues (don't get me wrong, politics is definitely a catalyst). This has been true for GW, medicine, access to materials (water, food), etc. Because frankly throughout history it is common to have a > government that is utterly unresponsive to its people. But is there a way that we can make it near impossible to not have net neutrality? As far as I'm aware, there is no solution that doesn't allow for someone to obtain control. Fixing the human factor is difficult, but is there a clear way to bypass it?
radarsat1 9y ago
> a government that is utterly unresponsive to its people. Isn't that what is meant by "not being heard"?
- manigandham 9y ago
  hearing != understanding != acting on behalf of

ajross 9y ago

Pai's immediate predecessor literally flipped his position on net neutrality, owing largely (at least as is commonly assumed) to political pressure from the White House, itself driven by clearly expressed sentiment among the democratic base. Absent the earlier burst of activism, it's unlikely the Obama administration would have cared enough to lean on Wheeler. That doesn't mean that it's going to work on Trump and Pai in the same way, but arguing that activism "doesn't work" based on this one data point is silly. It does work, sometimes. The details matter.

chestervonwinch 9y ago
There's a number of studies showing how legislation doesn't represent the preferences of constituents. See for more info, represent.us or the Anti-corruption act [1]. The last net neutrality outcry was unique in that nearly every major internet-based company joined in the protest. I don't think I've ever seen that happen for any other issue before. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Corruption_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Corruption_Act

godelski 9y ago

I think with politics taking such a hard line position on reducing neutrality that we really have to just bypass the politics of it all together. If we look at history, it would suggest that this is the major way to avoid a lot of these issues (don't get me wrong, politics is definitely a catalyst). This has been true for GW, medicine, access to materials (water, food), etc. Because frankly throughout history it is common to have a > government that is utterly unresponsive to its people. But is there a way that we can make it near impossible to not have net neutrality? As far as I'm aware, there is no solution that doesn't allow for someone to obtain control. Fixing the human factor is difficult, but is there a clear way to bypass it?

radarsat1 9y ago

> a government that is utterly unresponsive to its people. Isn't that what is meant by "not being heard"?

manigandham 9y ago
hearing != understanding != acting on behalf of