7 ms·

What happens to a person that he or she will hurt a nation of people, against his or her job description, for what? ... a few dollars? I think my empathy skill

by spodek 9y ago

What happens to a person that he or she will hurt a nation of people, against his or her job description, for what? ... a few dollars? I think my empathy skills are good, but I struggle to understand Ajit Pai. What is redeeming to this course beyond some dollars to a negligible number of people compared to the number of voters supposedly represented?

arca_vorago 9y ago
You won't like the answer. Bribery works for most people, but is often much more subtle than simple quid pro quo. Things like offering a child of bribee business deals, etc. Jack Abramoff has talked about this pretty openly since his conviction. Now, when bribery doesn't work, it gets darker. Blackmail, extortion, threats against family members, and worse. I'll leave it there for now, but in general most people in DC seem to just be thinking "I'm gonna get mine for me and my family, fuck everyone else."
- FilterSweep 9y ago
  I'll just add that sometimes threats come even before bribery in the form of careericide
indubitable 9y ago
In general, I think if it's the case that you can't reasonably defend a view you don't agree with then there's a very good chance you don't understand it. I was in the same boat as you until I started looking at Pai's comments [1][2][3]. Notably those are all transcripts. What he actually says, and the implications of the headlines and comments snipped by third party organizations tend to be quite different indeed! While certainly missing plenty of nuance, his view is that rules should be written as necessary instead of creating an enormous rule book based entirely on today's tech. And to some degree, I think this has a lot of merit. Take for instance SpaceX and Google's variations of widespread air-based internet. If the throughput for these systems starts to become an issue would it be so unreasonable for them to throttle or block sites consuming disproportionate resources? And yes, this could absolutely be used in an anti-competitive fashion. What Pai is saying is deal with specific bad behaviors as they arise instead of building an encyclopedia of rapidly dated laws against many actions - which in some cases could be completely justifiable and beneficial. Maybe the most basic argument is that it should be clear that net neutrality has not really achieved anything. Many people seem to think we always had net neutrality and stripping it away is some radical shift. In reality the government had no formal regulatory role on the internet until 2015. What was the state of the internet beforehand? Has it worsened or improved since then? [1] - https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chair-dishes-on-plan-to-rewrite-net-neutrality-rules/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chair-dishes-on-plan-to-rewrit... [2] - https://www.recode.net/2017/5/5/15560150/transcript-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-merger-recode-decode https://www.recode.net/2017/5/5/15560150/transcript-fcc-chai... [3] - https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/05/526916610/fcc-chief-net-neutrality-rules-treating-internet-as-utility-stifle-growth https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/05/52...
- burkaman 9y ago
  We have always had net neutrality, it just hasn't been required. We need rules now because the incentive to violate it has recently become much stronger.
- intopieces 9y ago
  >What Pai is saying is deal with specific bad behaviors as they arise instead of building an encyclopedia of rapidly dated laws against many actions What evidence do we have that the US Government will do this? What mechanism has Pai proposed we put in place to ensure that we address them? It's true that I don't understand his position. And that is a fundamental failure of Pai and his team. A failure to properly explain to the American internet-going public the benefit of his position beyond "it isn't our job to police the Internet." Sorry to reduce his stance to a meme, and one that might not even accurately encapsulate his positions, but I'm a reasonably well informed individual and all I can see is higher prices for Internet ahead.
  - kodablah 9y ago
    > What evidence do we have that the US Government will do this? They tend to be quite reactionary (to our detriment in many cases). I don't necessarily agree with Pai, but many of his ilk can point to preemptive restrictive regulations as bad. If there is a side effect, it might just be that those clamoring for unrestricted internet access force their municipalities (and states) to publicly commoditize ISPs. But yes, you are more likely to see a "internet basic package" come through at a lower price at first.
    - intopieces 9y ago
      >If there is a side effect, it might just be that those clamoring for unrestricted internet access force their municipalities (and states) to publicly commoditize ISPs. Force them? Here's an example of his ilk pre-empting that: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-lawmaker-has-proposed-banning-municipal-broadband-networks/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-la...
- 9y ago
saiya-jin 9y ago
Not knowing enough about this specific topic to throw in a judgement, but generally many people will do just about anything for a 'few' dollars. Just look at mercenaries. Or billions of people who go to work they hate/don't give a pico-fraction of a fuck about, and waste their best remaining days in this reality just sitting through it. And that's just purely money. Add power, and you end up with... politics
bo1024 9y ago
The most charitable interpretation I have is that some people, perhaps Pai included, are fed enough propoganda that they start believing it. If you only listen to and think about arguments made by lobbyists for big businesses, and you can succeed in your job and make more money / have more power by believing them, then you're less likely to seek out opposing ideas or even think critically about what you're told.
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
Maybe he simply wants to be respected among his peers? Or maybe he wants to leave some "mark" on the FCC and sees this as a way to do it? Or maybe he just thinks he's right.
MrFantastic 9y ago
Pai will get millions of dollars in "Consulting" contracts after he leaves the FCC.
elihu 9y ago
"The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" was posted here about a month ago. http://www.zoon.cc/stupid/ http://www.zoon.cc/stupid/ It defines stupidity in an interesting way: > A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses. The point is that if someone is doing something that's detrimental to others, it's a mistake to assume that they must be getting some kind of advantage by their actions. Making life a little worse for themselves and others might just be their way of interacting with the world. I don't know if that descrbes Pai. He might actually be getting a significant personal advantage for what he's doing. I just think we should consider the possibility that the things he's doing don't have a rational reason.
pdkl95 9y ago
It isn't stupidity or propaganda creating a misinformed understanding; Pai actions clearly demonstrate he has a good understanding of the politics of power. He is paying off the key interests that he hopes will help him maintain his position and its associated power. This is true in some way about all positions of power. An unfortunate consequence is that resources spent on helping people are resources that could have been spent buying loyalty. The way the people can benefit is if they are a key supporter that needs to be paid for their support (e.g. by having a strong electoral system). CGP Grey made a very good summary of how this works, "The Rules for Rulers"[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

by spodek 9y ago

arca_vorago 9y ago

You won't like the answer. Bribery works for most people, but is often much more subtle than simple quid pro quo. Things like offering a child of bribee business deals, etc. Jack Abramoff has talked about this pretty openly since his conviction. Now, when bribery doesn't work, it gets darker. Blackmail, extortion, threats against family members, and worse. I'll leave it there for now, but in general most people in DC seem to just be thinking "I'm gonna get mine for me and my family, fuck everyone else."

FilterSweep 9y ago
I'll just add that sometimes threats come even before bribery in the form of careericide

indubitable 9y ago

In general, I think if it's the case that you can't reasonably defend a view you don't agree with then there's a very good chance you don't understand it. I was in the same boat as you until I started looking at Pai's comments [1][2][3]. Notably those are all transcripts. What he actually says, and the implications of the headlines and comments snipped by third party organizations tend to be quite different indeed! While certainly missing plenty of nuance, his view is that rules should be written as necessary instead of creating an enormous rule book based entirely on today's tech. And to some degree, I think this has a lot of merit. Take for instance SpaceX and Google's variations of widespread air-based internet. If the throughput for these systems starts to become an issue would it be so unreasonable for them to throttle or block sites consuming disproportionate resources? And yes, this could absolutely be used in an anti-competitive fashion. What Pai is saying is deal with specific bad behaviors as they arise instead of building an encyclopedia of rapidly dated laws against many actions - which in some cases could be completely justifiable and beneficial. Maybe the most basic argument is that it should be clear that net neutrality has not really achieved anything. Many people seem to think we always had net neutrality and stripping it away is some radical shift. In reality the government had no formal regulatory role on the internet until 2015. What was the state of the internet beforehand? Has it worsened or improved since then? [1] - https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chair-dishes-on-plan-to-rewrite-net-neutrality-rules/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chair-dishes-on-plan-to-rewrit... [2] - https://www.recode.net/2017/5/5/15560150/transcript-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-merger-recode-decode https://www.recode.net/2017/5/5/15560150/transcript-fcc-chai... [3] - https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/05/526916610/fcc-chief-net-neutrality-rules-treating-internet-as-utility-stifle-growth https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/05/52...

burkaman 9y ago
We have always had net neutrality, it just hasn't been required. We need rules now because the incentive to violate it has recently become much stronger.
intopieces 9y ago
>What Pai is saying is deal with specific bad behaviors as they arise instead of building an encyclopedia of rapidly dated laws against many actions What evidence do we have that the US Government will do this? What mechanism has Pai proposed we put in place to ensure that we address them? It's true that I don't understand his position. And that is a fundamental failure of Pai and his team. A failure to properly explain to the American internet-going public the benefit of his position beyond "it isn't our job to police the Internet." Sorry to reduce his stance to a meme, and one that might not even accurately encapsulate his positions, but I'm a reasonably well informed individual and all I can see is higher prices for Internet ahead.
- kodablah 9y ago
  > What evidence do we have that the US Government will do this? They tend to be quite reactionary (to our detriment in many cases). I don't necessarily agree with Pai, but many of his ilk can point to preemptive restrictive regulations as bad. If there is a side effect, it might just be that those clamoring for unrestricted internet access force their municipalities (and states) to publicly commoditize ISPs. But yes, you are more likely to see a "internet basic package" come through at a lower price at first.
  - intopieces 9y ago
    >If there is a side effect, it might just be that those clamoring for unrestricted internet access force their municipalities (and states) to publicly commoditize ISPs. Force them? Here's an example of his ilk pre-empting that: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-lawmaker-has-proposed-banning-municipal-broadband-networks/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-la...
9y ago

saiya-jin 9y ago

Not knowing enough about this specific topic to throw in a judgement, but generally many people will do just about anything for a 'few' dollars. Just look at mercenaries. Or billions of people who go to work they hate/don't give a pico-fraction of a fuck about, and waste their best remaining days in this reality just sitting through it. And that's just purely money. Add power, and you end up with... politics

bo1024 9y ago

The most charitable interpretation I have is that some people, perhaps Pai included, are fed enough propoganda that they start believing it. If you only listen to and think about arguments made by lobbyists for big businesses, and you can succeed in your job and make more money / have more power by believing them, then you're less likely to seek out opposing ideas or even think critically about what you're told.

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

Maybe he simply wants to be respected among his peers? Or maybe he wants to leave some "mark" on the FCC and sees this as a way to do it? Or maybe he just thinks he's right.

MrFantastic 9y ago

Pai will get millions of dollars in "Consulting" contracts after he leaves the FCC.

elihu 9y ago

"The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" was posted here about a month ago. http://www.zoon.cc/stupid/ http://www.zoon.cc/stupid/ It defines stupidity in an interesting way: > A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses. The point is that if someone is doing something that's detrimental to others, it's a mistake to assume that they must be getting some kind of advantage by their actions. Making life a little worse for themselves and others might just be their way of interacting with the world. I don't know if that descrbes Pai. He might actually be getting a significant personal advantage for what he's doing. I just think we should consider the possibility that the things he's doing don't have a rational reason.

pdkl95 9y ago

It isn't stupidity or propaganda creating a misinformed understanding; Pai actions clearly demonstrate he has a good understanding of the politics of power. He is paying off the key interests that he hopes will help him maintain his position and its associated power. This is true in some way about all positions of power. An unfortunate consequence is that resources spent on helping people are resources that could have been spent buying loyalty. The way the people can benefit is if they are a key supporter that needs to be paid for their support (e.g. by having a strong electoral system). CGP Grey made a very good summary of how this works, "The Rules for Rulers"[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs