5 ms·

I'm afraid that debating issues like this with anti-neutrality conservatives is getting lost in the weeds. Something they probably will respond to, if you can

I'm afraid that debating issues like this with anti-neutrality conservatives is getting lost in the weeds. Something they probably will respond to, if you can hammer it into their heads through all the propaganda they've been fed, is that a free market for ISPs doesn't exist, can't exist (last mile infrastructure can't support a free market even under ideal conditions), and won't exist under Pai's plan. A free market for internet providers probably doesn't even exist in Pai's dreams, unless he's as dumb as the propaganda the FCC is putting out. Then ask them if they really think it's a good idea, in a low-competition market that's not free, to let ISPs do nearly whatever they want.

bnjms 9y ago
The follow up is to use conservative free market rhetoric towards maintaining a free market on the internet, and pointing out that neutral networks are the default state and are therefore NN is not burdensome legislation. Any other ideas? I really think the most conservative position is to maintain a neutral internet.
- betterunix2 9y ago
  Maybe point out that there is a competitive market for ISPs in France because of line-sharing rules: https://venturebeat.com/2014/11/12/what-france-has-taught-me-americans-are-suckers-who-have-themselves-to-blame-for-crappy-broadband/ https://venturebeat.com/2014/11/12/what-france-has-taught-me...
  - JohnTHaller 9y ago
    But sharing is socialism! eyeroll
  - bnjms 9y ago
    And if they say that's "just Europe" point out that it's similar to power utility rules in conservative states. Fiber optic lines are not that dissimilar to power lines.
- FranOntanaya 9y ago
  I don't think a lot of people speaking of free market have a deep knowledge about it. Arguing in that direction puts them in the uncomfortable situation of not having the words together to defend their side of the argument. Try some tin foil hat argument about laying new cable being too expensive for the small guy, their internet ending controlled by "X" company CEO who may be part of "Z" cabal, and planted government moles not letting POTUS see the truth.
  - bnjms 9y ago
    I'd think that would be a better follow up. Give them words for an argument then sidetrack the argument into tin foil hat theory that's easy to latch onto.
madaxe_again 9y ago
This is pretty much the playbook I tried with my father last night, to no avail. You see, it’s not about rational arguments - and if you try to fight it on those grounds, you’ll have Brexit all over your hands, and it’s a nightmare to clean up. No - last night I explained how the proposed legislation would directly hurt him, how it would take away freedoms he currently enjoys. Everything looped back to “but Obama crippled the internet in 2015” and “but I want internet freedom”. When those didn’t fit, it turned into generational crap. “My generation invented the internet. Yours just uses it for smartphones and twitter and facebook. We wouldn’t even be having this argument if it weren’t for millennials messing up the internet.” He’s not stupid - he’s just suspending the rational thought he’s amply capable of in favour of comforting lies. No, he’s broken, without hope. The content, the detail, the logic, the impact - all irrelevant. What is relevant is picking at the feeling of trapped failure that pervades much of society, and providing the population with a facile solution to their complex problems. “Vote for internet freedom, imagine the flag flying in the breeze against a clear blue sky and an eagle flies by, just like the good old days, when pop would put you on his shoulders to see the marching band”. Problem is, when you try to argue either the immediate argument or the broader emotional trap they’re in, they dig in deeper - nobody wants to be the fool who fell in a trap. It’s very nearly if not actually checkmate politics - I cannot see an out that doesn’t require going through hell, and I’ll be delightfully surprised if this doesn’t pass into law with roaring popular support.
- iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
  He's not broken. Something about your argument tugs at the very foundation of his identity. By attacking something so close (what ever it is) to his identity he percieves it as personal. Food for thought
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Would that identity be "I'm right all the time regardless of the actual facts"? I see that a lot :(
    - iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
waterhouse 9y ago
> can't exist (last mile infrastructure can't support a free market even under ideal conditions) Could you expand on this? Here is an article that asserts that the ascription of "natural monopoly" to many industries is due to the successful efforts by dominant players in those industries to persuade people (primarily politicians) to grant them legal monopolies, and that their arguments are not to be trusted and often demonstrably wrong. It specifically addresses the industries of electric power, cable TV, and telephones. https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
- cdoxsey 9y ago
  In particular if the government freed up some of the wireless spectrum we could see wireless internet competition.

bnjms 9y ago

The follow up is to use conservative free market rhetoric towards maintaining a free market on the internet, and pointing out that neutral networks are the default state and are therefore NN is not burdensome legislation. Any other ideas? I really think the most conservative position is to maintain a neutral internet.

betterunix2 9y ago
Maybe point out that there is a competitive market for ISPs in France because of line-sharing rules: https://venturebeat.com/2014/11/12/what-france-has-taught-me-americans-are-suckers-who-have-themselves-to-blame-for-crappy-broadband/ https://venturebeat.com/2014/11/12/what-france-has-taught-me...
- JohnTHaller 9y ago
  But sharing is socialism! eyeroll
- bnjms 9y ago
  And if they say that's "just Europe" point out that it's similar to power utility rules in conservative states. Fiber optic lines are not that dissimilar to power lines.
FranOntanaya 9y ago
I don't think a lot of people speaking of free market have a deep knowledge about it. Arguing in that direction puts them in the uncomfortable situation of not having the words together to defend their side of the argument. Try some tin foil hat argument about laying new cable being too expensive for the small guy, their internet ending controlled by "X" company CEO who may be part of "Z" cabal, and planted government moles not letting POTUS see the truth.
- bnjms 9y ago
  I'd think that would be a better follow up. Give them words for an argument then sidetrack the argument into tin foil hat theory that's easy to latch onto.

madaxe_again 9y ago

This is pretty much the playbook I tried with my father last night, to no avail. You see, it’s not about rational arguments - and if you try to fight it on those grounds, you’ll have Brexit all over your hands, and it’s a nightmare to clean up. No - last night I explained how the proposed legislation would directly hurt him, how it would take away freedoms he currently enjoys. Everything looped back to “but Obama crippled the internet in 2015” and “but I want internet freedom”. When those didn’t fit, it turned into generational crap. “My generation invented the internet. Yours just uses it for smartphones and twitter and facebook. We wouldn’t even be having this argument if it weren’t for millennials messing up the internet.” He’s not stupid - he’s just suspending the rational thought he’s amply capable of in favour of comforting lies. No, he’s broken, without hope. The content, the detail, the logic, the impact - all irrelevant. What is relevant is picking at the feeling of trapped failure that pervades much of society, and providing the population with a facile solution to their complex problems. “Vote for internet freedom, imagine the flag flying in the breeze against a clear blue sky and an eagle flies by, just like the good old days, when pop would put you on his shoulders to see the marching band”. Problem is, when you try to argue either the immediate argument or the broader emotional trap they’re in, they dig in deeper - nobody wants to be the fool who fell in a trap. It’s very nearly if not actually checkmate politics - I cannot see an out that doesn’t require going through hell, and I’ll be delightfully surprised if this doesn’t pass into law with roaring popular support.

iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
He's not broken. Something about your argument tugs at the very foundation of his identity. By attacking something so close (what ever it is) to his identity he percieves it as personal. Food for thought
- pjc50 9y ago
  Would that identity be "I'm right all the time regardless of the actual facts"? I see that a lot :(
  - iovrthoughtthis 9y ago

waterhouse 9y ago

> can't exist (last mile infrastructure can't support a free market even under ideal conditions) Could you expand on this? Here is an article that asserts that the ascription of "natural monopoly" to many industries is due to the successful efforts by dominant players in those industries to persuade people (primarily politicians) to grant them legal monopolies, and that their arguments are not to be trusted and often demonstrably wrong. It specifically addresses the industries of electric power, cable TV, and telephones. https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

cdoxsey 9y ago
In particular if the government freed up some of the wireless spectrum we could see wireless internet competition.