4 ms·

> 41% are Uncertain, which suggests they recognize that they don't know much about the subject > comments by Agree and Strongly Agree respondents indicate they

> 41% are Uncertain, which suggests they recognize that they don't know much about the subject > comments by Agree and Strongly Agree respondents indicate they don't understand the subject fully So according to this reasoning no matter what answer you give, you don't understand the issue. > Those appear to be economists, not Internet domain specialists. NN is about regulating the internet. Economists are experts in the domain of regulation.

extra88 9y ago
>> comments by Agree and Strongly Agree respondents indicate they don't understand the subject fully > So according to this reasoning no matter what answer you give, you don't understand the issue. I'm not referring to their responses, I'm referring to the comments quoted in the table below the charts. Some indicate clear ignorance of the subject. Others acknowledge pitfalls while handwaving them away. This comment is ignorant and hand-wavy:"Seems like those who cause congestion should pay more. I know some worry that ISPs will play favorites, but that should be preventable." The question posed is whether content providers should pay ISPs, but this first sentence talks about those who cause congestion, it's the ISP's customer causing the congestion! Then he acknowledges ISPs playing favorites but assumes it's preventable. It is preventable, by having regulations that require net neutrality, what else is there? Some economists are experts in the domain of regulation. These economists were not picked for that specific domain knowledge and clearly not more specifically the sub-domain of regulation of this kind of service (utility or at least utility-like).
- ikeboy 9y ago
  Can you give examples of economic studies that support banning paid prioritization? There's some links in http://www.aei.org/publication/net-neutrality-economics-says/ http://www.aei.org/publication/net-neutrality-economics-says..., but I had trouble finding studies saying the opposite - it's surprisingly difficult to find anyone going into technical detail at all
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
> NN is about regulating the internet. Economists are experts in the domain of regulation. Wait, what? Knowing a lot about regulation in general doesn't mean you know shit about any given subject of regulation in particular. By your logic we should fire the doctors and scientists at the FDA and replace them with economists.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  We should, and then they'd probably stop killing tens of thousands of people every year (cf http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php and studies cited within) Or at least have an economist in charge.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    It feels like you're going for an economist version of this xkcd. https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/
    - ikeboy 9y ago
      I'm assuming you disagree with the conclusions of the studies cited for the number of deaths caused by the FDA? Any particular reason?
      - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
        I haven't looked into it enough to have an opinion one way or another. I suspect that the article is cherry-picking, but perhaps the FDA is so critically fucked up that randos off the street could do a better job. But this isn't about the FDA. You're claiming that knowing a lot about economic regulation makes you a superior domain expert in any field which can be regulated. That economists are better qualified than doctors to regulate dangerous medicines, better qualified than ecologists and meteorologists to predict human-caused climate trends, better qualified than automotive engineers to determine what makes vehicles safe. That's very silly.

extra88 9y ago

>> comments by Agree and Strongly Agree respondents indicate they don't understand the subject fully > So according to this reasoning no matter what answer you give, you don't understand the issue. I'm not referring to their responses, I'm referring to the comments quoted in the table below the charts. Some indicate clear ignorance of the subject. Others acknowledge pitfalls while handwaving them away. This comment is ignorant and hand-wavy:"Seems like those who cause congestion should pay more. I know some worry that ISPs will play favorites, but that should be preventable." The question posed is whether content providers should pay ISPs, but this first sentence talks about those who cause congestion, it's the ISP's customer causing the congestion! Then he acknowledges ISPs playing favorites but assumes it's preventable. It is preventable, by having regulations that require net neutrality, what else is there? Some economists are experts in the domain of regulation. These economists were not picked for that specific domain knowledge and clearly not more specifically the sub-domain of regulation of this kind of service (utility or at least utility-like).

ikeboy 9y ago
Can you give examples of economic studies that support banning paid prioritization? There's some links in http://www.aei.org/publication/net-neutrality-economics-says/ http://www.aei.org/publication/net-neutrality-economics-says..., but I had trouble finding studies saying the opposite - it's surprisingly difficult to find anyone going into technical detail at all

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

> NN is about regulating the internet. Economists are experts in the domain of regulation. Wait, what? Knowing a lot about regulation in general doesn't mean you know shit about any given subject of regulation in particular. By your logic we should fire the doctors and scientists at the FDA and replace them with economists.

ikeboy 9y ago
We should, and then they'd probably stop killing tens of thousands of people every year (cf http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php and studies cited within) Or at least have an economist in charge.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  It feels like you're going for an economist version of this xkcd. https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/
  - ikeboy 9y ago
    I'm assuming you disagree with the conclusions of the studies cited for the number of deaths caused by the FDA? Any particular reason?
    - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      I haven't looked into it enough to have an opinion one way or another. I suspect that the article is cherry-picking, but perhaps the FDA is so critically fucked up that randos off the street could do a better job. But this isn't about the FDA. You're claiming that knowing a lot about economic regulation makes you a superior domain expert in any field which can be regulated. That economists are better qualified than doctors to regulate dangerous medicines, better qualified than ecologists and meteorologists to predict human-caused climate trends, better qualified than automotive engineers to determine what makes vehicles safe. That's very silly.