10 ms·

> After reading about Pai, it seems like he was hand selected to be the figure head with which the ISPs would finally take down Net Neutrality. He's not. He'

by paulmd 9y ago

> After reading about Pai, it seems like he was hand selected to be the figure head with which the ISPs would finally take down Net Neutrality. He's not. He's a generic Republican, appointed by Obama (since the commission is obligated by Congress to have no more than a simple majority of appointees from any one party). The problem is, this is what all Republicans are like nowadays. Any other person that Obama could have appointed would be doing the exact same thing in these circumstances. And in fact, virtually every other regulatory agency and department is doing the exact same thing thanks to Trump appointees. They are un-interested in any semblance of reasonable governance, it's siphoning your money to their backers in the most direct and aggressive fashion, plain and simple. Elections have consequences. A lot of prominent Silicon Valley figures backed Trump figuring it would be an easy tax cut for them, and this is the result. What's that story Trump liked to tell around the campaign trail, the frog and the scorpion? Everyone fantasizes they'd be the ones to come out on top (Ayn Rand wrote a whole book about it!), but there is always a bigger fish. Welcome to laissez-faire capitalism, where buying the government is part of the game. Free Markets are not a stable social structure by themselves, they need government regulation to keep the playing field level. The truth is not in the middle, and not all viewpoints have equal merit. We have one reasonable party whose positions you may or may not like, and one batshit insane party that begins tearing everything down as soon as they're in power. Shame it takes a lesson like this for people to realize that. Sorry to be blunt, and sorry to bring politics into this forum. But that's the way it is.

timthelion 9y ago
How do you determine which party an appointee belongs to? Why didn't Obama appoint someone from the green party?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Why didn't Obama appoint someone from the green party? Because aside from the law governing appointments, there is also the Senate confirmation process, and such a violation of both the spirit of the law and the established informal norms would both be unlikely to survive that process, and complicate other matters before the Senate, which was blocking more routine nominees.
rhino369 9y ago
>They are un-interested in any semblance of reasonable governance, it's siphoning your money to their backers in the most direct and aggressive fashion, plain and simple. They are uninterested in your view of reasonable governance. Reasonable people can and do disagree with things like net neutrality.
- tw04 9y ago
  >They are uninterested in your view of reasonable governance. Reasonable people can and do disagree with things like net neutrality. Really? On what grounds? Because I've literally not run into a single person, democrat or republican, who thinks net neutrality should go away. *Mind you, I'm not personally friends with any executives from one of the big 8 companies that stand to benefit from it... but outside of them and shareholders I'm struggling to come up with the "reasonable" person who thinks this will be a good thing.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    > Because I've literally not run into a single person, democrat or republican, who thinks net neutrality should go away. My father. In his opinion, businesses should be allowed to manage themselves as they see fit, without outside interference. Various people I've had 1-on-1 conversations with online. Often some variation on the regulations being difficult to enforce, and pointless because companies weren't doing things that were that bad before net neutrality anyhow. We could debate the extent to which they were "reasonable" people, but I think that their opinions were reasoned out. They just started from assumptions that I disagree with.
    - tw04 9y ago
      >My father. In his opinion, businesses should be allowed to manage themselves as they see fit, without outside interference. So consumers are just at the mercy of the corporate monopolies then? I'm curious how he expects a democracy to survive in the face of monopolies owning the media and controlling our "free" press. History has shown that's basically impossible, but I assume he's got a solution given you've said he's reasonable. >Various people I've had 1-on-1 conversations with online. Often some variation on the regulations being difficult to enforce, and pointless because companies weren't doing things that were that bad before net neutrality anyhow Then they haven't bothered to do basic research. It isn't hard to enforce and there was a framework in place already.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
There isn't a "reasonable" party, the Democrats could have made this a law making repealing it difficult. They found the to give ISPs billions of dollars, and to legalize spying on their customers though. Both parties are a joke, voting for either is an awful choice.
- mattnewton 9y ago
  Fear of losing to the other party is the only thing that keeps them from being more awful. So please don’t stop voting.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    Vote in every election, just never for an awful choice.
- Tloewald 9y ago
  The Democrats were pretty much unable to pass any legislation worth a damn after 2010, which is why everything done afterwards is so easily undone. One party is for dealing with climate change, privacy, net neutrality, healthcare, etc. It may be bad, but it's definitely _less_ bad.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    One of my examples was before 2010, the other was introduced by a Democrat and signed into law by one. They didn't consider universal health care an option, saying they cared about privacy is a sick joke, they didn't make net neutrality a law. They may be slightly less bad but voting for them is still a terrible choice.
    - Tloewald 9y ago
      The thing about the lesser of two evils is that it’s the lesser of two evils and picking it over the greater of two evils is a good choice. That said, the most important issue of our time is climate change and the difference there is utterly clear.
caseydurfee 9y ago
Point of clarification: Pai was appointed to the 5 person FCC commission by Obama. He was named chairman by Trump. FWIW, the previous chairman, Tom Wheeler (ostensibly a Democrat), probably would've dismantled net neutrality if Obama hadn't come out strongly in favor of it. I find it incredibly frustrating that people clearly see the need for referees in sports, but not in business. Nobody's saying that the NFL or the NBA would have better competition if there were no refs.
- slededit 9y ago
  There is a referee in business: the court system. What your proposing is more like a league which will solidify the rules as they currently exist. An example of this is banning innovations like Aluminum bats.
  - notgoodenuff88 9y ago
    The court system isn't suited for this anymore. It was a different time in 1776 when corporations were not allowed to live in perpetuity, amassing as much of the valuable resources as they can, handing it off to ancestors upon the owners death (sounds a bit like monarchism, IMO). "What your proposing is more like a league which will solidify the rules as they currently exist." According to Thomas Jefferson, this is exactly what Constitution and laws are for. Thomas Jefferson: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
    - slededit 9y ago
      The dutch east india company controlled half the world at one point. Do you really believe today's corporations are more powerful? Your quote says laws should evolve with the people which lends to neither of our arguments as we're discussing how it should evolve not "if".
Feniks 9y ago
Its not the elections or the Republicans. The US was under the impression that they were special snowflakes. Every country has rules about corporate involvement in political campaigns. But Americans knew better. Our politicians can't be bribed because America fuck yeah! All citizens are equal but some are more equal than others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
banku_brougham 9y ago
Thank you for the bluntness, after taking a minute I cannot refute anything you said. There are many complaints these days about the increasing level of political discourse on HN. But the way things are going, we’ll come to the point where we have to talk about things with the people next to us in the grocery store line. This is a dangerous road we are on. The country in control of some deeply unhappy few that never queue for a checkout counter.

by paulmd 9y ago

timthelion 9y ago

How do you determine which party an appointee belongs to? Why didn't Obama appoint someone from the green party?

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Why didn't Obama appoint someone from the green party? Because aside from the law governing appointments, there is also the Senate confirmation process, and such a violation of both the spirit of the law and the established informal norms would both be unlikely to survive that process, and complicate other matters before the Senate, which was blocking more routine nominees.

rhino369 9y ago

>They are un-interested in any semblance of reasonable governance, it's siphoning your money to their backers in the most direct and aggressive fashion, plain and simple. They are uninterested in your view of reasonable governance. Reasonable people can and do disagree with things like net neutrality.

tw04 9y ago
>They are uninterested in your view of reasonable governance. Reasonable people can and do disagree with things like net neutrality. Really? On what grounds? Because I've literally not run into a single person, democrat or republican, who thinks net neutrality should go away. *Mind you, I'm not personally friends with any executives from one of the big 8 companies that stand to benefit from it... but outside of them and shareholders I'm struggling to come up with the "reasonable" person who thinks this will be a good thing.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  > Because I've literally not run into a single person, democrat or republican, who thinks net neutrality should go away. My father. In his opinion, businesses should be allowed to manage themselves as they see fit, without outside interference. Various people I've had 1-on-1 conversations with online. Often some variation on the regulations being difficult to enforce, and pointless because companies weren't doing things that were that bad before net neutrality anyhow. We could debate the extent to which they were "reasonable" people, but I think that their opinions were reasoned out. They just started from assumptions that I disagree with.
  - tw04 9y ago
    >My father. In his opinion, businesses should be allowed to manage themselves as they see fit, without outside interference. So consumers are just at the mercy of the corporate monopolies then? I'm curious how he expects a democracy to survive in the face of monopolies owning the media and controlling our "free" press. History has shown that's basically impossible, but I assume he's got a solution given you've said he's reasonable. >Various people I've had 1-on-1 conversations with online. Often some variation on the regulations being difficult to enforce, and pointless because companies weren't doing things that were that bad before net neutrality anyhow Then they haven't bothered to do basic research. It isn't hard to enforce and there was a framework in place already.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

There isn't a "reasonable" party, the Democrats could have made this a law making repealing it difficult. They found the to give ISPs billions of dollars, and to legalize spying on their customers though. Both parties are a joke, voting for either is an awful choice.

mattnewton 9y ago
Fear of losing to the other party is the only thing that keeps them from being more awful. So please don’t stop voting.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  Vote in every election, just never for an awful choice.
Tloewald 9y ago
The Democrats were pretty much unable to pass any legislation worth a damn after 2010, which is why everything done afterwards is so easily undone. One party is for dealing with climate change, privacy, net neutrality, healthcare, etc. It may be bad, but it's definitely _less_ bad.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  One of my examples was before 2010, the other was introduced by a Democrat and signed into law by one. They didn't consider universal health care an option, saying they cared about privacy is a sick joke, they didn't make net neutrality a law. They may be slightly less bad but voting for them is still a terrible choice.
  - Tloewald 9y ago
    The thing about the lesser of two evils is that it’s the lesser of two evils and picking it over the greater of two evils is a good choice. That said, the most important issue of our time is climate change and the difference there is utterly clear.

caseydurfee 9y ago

Point of clarification: Pai was appointed to the 5 person FCC commission by Obama. He was named chairman by Trump. FWIW, the previous chairman, Tom Wheeler (ostensibly a Democrat), probably would've dismantled net neutrality if Obama hadn't come out strongly in favor of it. I find it incredibly frustrating that people clearly see the need for referees in sports, but not in business. Nobody's saying that the NFL or the NBA would have better competition if there were no refs.

slededit 9y ago
There is a referee in business: the court system. What your proposing is more like a league which will solidify the rules as they currently exist. An example of this is banning innovations like Aluminum bats.
- notgoodenuff88 9y ago
  The court system isn't suited for this anymore. It was a different time in 1776 when corporations were not allowed to live in perpetuity, amassing as much of the valuable resources as they can, handing it off to ancestors upon the owners death (sounds a bit like monarchism, IMO). "What your proposing is more like a league which will solidify the rules as they currently exist." According to Thomas Jefferson, this is exactly what Constitution and laws are for. Thomas Jefferson: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
  - slededit 9y ago
    The dutch east india company controlled half the world at one point. Do you really believe today's corporations are more powerful? Your quote says laws should evolve with the people which lends to neither of our arguments as we're discussing how it should evolve not "if".

Feniks 9y ago

Its not the elections or the Republicans. The US was under the impression that they were special snowflakes. Every country has rules about corporate involvement in political campaigns. But Americans knew better. Our politicians can't be bribed because America fuck yeah! All citizens are equal but some are more equal than others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

banku_brougham 9y ago

Thank you for the bluntness, after taking a minute I cannot refute anything you said. There are many complaints these days about the increasing level of political discourse on HN. But the way things are going, we’ll come to the point where we have to talk about things with the people next to us in the grocery store line. This is a dangerous road we are on. The country in control of some deeply unhappy few that never queue for a checkout counter.