5 ms·

Aren't government officials supposed to be working FOR the public, rather than some vested interests by a few? And shouldn't you be listening when the people w

Aren't government officials supposed to be working FOR the public, rather than some vested interests by a few? And shouldn't you be listening when the people who have made internet possible today (Tim Berners-Lee, Steven Bellovin, Steve Wozniak and Brewster Kahle to name a few) is very much against it? The vote, the process and the resulting decision otherwise should be done in an objective and transparent manner. Just the way that the internet has been envisioned to be.

jandrese 9y ago
The people already had their say on this last year. They demand more crony capitalism in government, and elected the leaders who would most effectively enact these policies for them. Well, technically it wasn't a majority, but it was a majority of the people who's votes count the most.
- dexterdog 9y ago
  Was there an alternative that would have meant less crony capitalism in government?
  - jandrese 9y ago
    Yes, but he didn't make it out of the primaries.
    - matwood 9y ago
      > Yes, but he didn't make it out of the primaries. Because of crony politics.
    - PostOnce 9y ago
      It wasn't merely bad luck, nor was it the will of the people. Rather than the DNC machine working to find which candidate the Democratic party voters at large preferred, they actively worked against Sanders; it was a machine to elect Clinton, not a machine to enact the will of the Democrats (the people, not the party's inner circle). I doubt they learned anything at all from their failure to get Clinton elected, though. I don't know that Sanders could have won the general election, but arguably the DNC's sabotage of the Sanders campaign and their subsequent failure to win the general election (with probably Russian interference) has and will continue to cost us dearly, now that we have lost much good faith in our international relations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi... https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-b... http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/ http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wass...
  - vkou 9y ago
    Unless you think that Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, or Bernie Sanders would have brought us the exact same amount of crony capitalism, it's possible. The controversy of executive appointments across 2017 was... Somewhat unprecedented.
    - CalChris 9y ago
      You have to include the Republican Senate since many of these appointments require Senate confirmation. And even then a few were below even that incredibly low bar.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - dexterdog 9y ago
      It's certainly possible it would have brought us more as they are all standard insiders. The ACA is one of the most crony capitalist laws that has ever been created in this country. Both sides are heinously guilty of putting monied interests over their jobs and the people refuse to make them pay for it.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Yes. Pretty much any of the other candidates from either major party, as well as the minor candidates that got national media attention (any of Stein, Johnson, or McMullin) Now, if the standard were “no” instead of “less”, the answer would be very different.
zeep 9y ago
They are supposed to work for the good of the majority while not crushing minorities... and since corporations are considered people and could be considered minorities, I guess it makes sense. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority . /s
- omnimus 9y ago
  Thats smart. So Pai is actually leftist protector of the weak.
- nerfhammer 9y ago
  This will benefit some corporations (Verizon, Comcast) and hurt others (Google, Facebook).
  - zjaffee 9y ago
    I would assume that this would ultimately help google and facebook, they will be able to afford to pay for fast lanes while also making deals where their services are faster than new comers.
    - nerfhammer 9y ago
      It doesn't help them at all. Google and Facebook can afford to pay whatever their users are worth to them and the ISPs can demand every last cent of that. It's exactly analogous to the RIAA squeezing music startups dry: You absolutely have to pay them so why would they demand anything less than everything you make? So why should ISPs demand anything less than everything the internet companies make?
      - gibybo 9y ago
        Google and Facebook are large and rich enough to replace the ISPs if they felt they needed to. They've both dabbled in this area and would surely turn it into a serious effort if their core business was threatened. They just haven't done it because it's still cheaper (for them) to let the existing ISPs do it. Comcast/Verizon/etc don't want to pick a fight with Google or Facebook. They want to pick fights they can easily win and gain extra money from: companies too small to pose a threat.

jandrese 9y ago

The people already had their say on this last year. They demand more crony capitalism in government, and elected the leaders who would most effectively enact these policies for them. Well, technically it wasn't a majority, but it was a majority of the people who's votes count the most.

dexterdog 9y ago
Was there an alternative that would have meant less crony capitalism in government?
- jandrese 9y ago
  Yes, but he didn't make it out of the primaries.
  - matwood 9y ago
    > Yes, but he didn't make it out of the primaries. Because of crony politics.
  - PostOnce 9y ago
    It wasn't merely bad luck, nor was it the will of the people. Rather than the DNC machine working to find which candidate the Democratic party voters at large preferred, they actively worked against Sanders; it was a machine to elect Clinton, not a machine to enact the will of the Democrats (the people, not the party's inner circle). I doubt they learned anything at all from their failure to get Clinton elected, though. I don't know that Sanders could have won the general election, but arguably the DNC's sabotage of the Sanders campaign and their subsequent failure to win the general election (with probably Russian interference) has and will continue to cost us dearly, now that we have lost much good faith in our international relations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi... https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-b... http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/ http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wass...
- vkou 9y ago
  Unless you think that Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, or Bernie Sanders would have brought us the exact same amount of crony capitalism, it's possible. The controversy of executive appointments across 2017 was... Somewhat unprecedented.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    You have to include the Republican Senate since many of these appointments require Senate confirmation. And even then a few were below even that incredibly low bar.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - dexterdog 9y ago
    It's certainly possible it would have brought us more as they are all standard insiders. The ACA is one of the most crony capitalist laws that has ever been created in this country. Both sides are heinously guilty of putting monied interests over their jobs and the people refuse to make them pay for it.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Yes. Pretty much any of the other candidates from either major party, as well as the minor candidates that got national media attention (any of Stein, Johnson, or McMullin) Now, if the standard were “no” instead of “less”, the answer would be very different.

zeep 9y ago

They are supposed to work for the good of the majority while not crushing minorities... and since corporations are considered people and could be considered minorities, I guess it makes sense. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority . /s

omnimus 9y ago
Thats smart. So Pai is actually leftist protector of the weak.
nerfhammer 9y ago
This will benefit some corporations (Verizon, Comcast) and hurt others (Google, Facebook).
- zjaffee 9y ago
  I would assume that this would ultimately help google and facebook, they will be able to afford to pay for fast lanes while also making deals where their services are faster than new comers.
  - nerfhammer 9y ago
    It doesn't help them at all. Google and Facebook can afford to pay whatever their users are worth to them and the ISPs can demand every last cent of that. It's exactly analogous to the RIAA squeezing music startups dry: You absolutely have to pay them so why would they demand anything less than everything you make? So why should ISPs demand anything less than everything the internet companies make?
    - gibybo 9y ago
      Google and Facebook are large and rich enough to replace the ISPs if they felt they needed to. They've both dabbled in this area and would surely turn it into a serious effort if their core business was threatened. They just haven't done it because it's still cheaper (for them) to let the existing ISPs do it. Comcast/Verizon/etc don't want to pick a fight with Google or Facebook. They want to pick fights they can easily win and gain extra money from: companies too small to pose a threat.