5 ms·

I may be alone, but this feels completely hopeless. This administration is the most corrupt, craven, and citizen-hostile in our history. Net neutrality is hardl

I may be alone, but this feels completely hopeless. This administration is the most corrupt, craven, and citizen-hostile in our history. Net neutrality is hardly the biggest problem facing America, and they keep doing much worse things, almost out of spite. And Congress has proven to be utterly feckless in their duty to hold the executive branch accountable. So I guess I just don't really see the point of engaging, because they. do. not. care. about. us. At the end of the day, we need to flip control of Congress. I don't think anything else will work.

paulddraper 9y ago
> they. do. not. care. about. us. One might wonder how they got half the votes when the other side cared. so. much. about. us.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  Actually, they didn't get half the votes. And the tribalism that's rampant in our politics today means that many voters are making choices based on lies and misinformation.
  - rdruxn 9y ago
    But good thing you know for certain you’re above all that!
    - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
      I'm not above falling victim to bad sources, confirmation bias, or other foibles of human knowledge, but I try to be aware of that and guard against it. Not perfectly, I'm sure, but that imperfection doesn't mean that we all have an equal grounding in the truth. This downward spiral into a crisis of epistemology ("who can really know anything for sure? there are so many lies out there! there is no way to discern truth!") is a fundamental strategy of authoritarian regimes (Russia), and it's being put to good use in this country. EDIT: typo
      - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        I think it's a fundamental strategy of Russia to try to do that to us. I think they're being fairly effective, too. Note well: I am not saying that this is all Russia's fault. But I think that there is evidence that they're trying to do exactly this to us.
- blacksmith_tb 9y ago
  It's clear where this debate is going. But to take us back to where we started, I would suggest that it's highly unlikely that a Clinton-administration FCC would be preparing to repeal the Title II protections for broadband. Not that I don't care about plenty of other issues, but the difference on this one seems clear.
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    Agreed. The OP was all over the map, but as far as NN, it's very unlikely that Clinton FCC would have repealed it.
- williamdclt 9y ago
  As a non-american, both side seem to be equally part of "they". H. Clinton is only the "other side" of Trump because the american politic system is de facto bipartite. Which easily answer one's wonder: "they" did not only get half the vote, "they" got all of them. To the question "how did they got the vote to be finalist", I'm afraid I don't have a better answer that the one that's repeated and repeated so much that it's becoming a gimmick: money, media, fear and stupidity
marcoperaza 9y ago
Have you considered that maybe there are thoughtful reasons why people might disagree with your policy views? If you really can't understand conservative policy aside from it being "corrupt, craven, citizen-hostile and spiteful", then I don't think you're giving the issues an objective analysis.
- jayess 9y ago
  Disagreement is no longer permitted. No matter which "side" you're on, the other side is relegated to a platitude.
  - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
    Perfectly said, but ironically, since I'm not on "the other side" here from a political perspective. I voted for Bush twice, Obama once, didn't vote in 2012 (sadly) but would have voted for Romney, and wouldn't be saying any of this if Mike Pence was president. But amusingly, you assume that my disapproval of Trump means that I'm "on the other side" and just spouting platitudes. Ironic.
    - ColanR 9y ago
      eh, I only got the impression you were "on the other side" when you mentioned flipping control of congress.
      - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
        For better or worse (probably worse) we have a two party system, and one party has full control of Congress and the executive branch. So "flipping control" in this case means breaking that lock on power. I don't really want Democrats to hold Congress and the White House either.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  My view on this administration is about more than their policy positions. For the record, I grew up conservative, my whole family is, I'm fairly libertarian in my views, and I didn't vote for either major party due to their policy positions. I understand conservative policy perfectly well.
40acres 9y ago
Agreed. I've been following this administration closely in the past year. It appears that they do nothing in good faith. Just look at how Congress tried to pass the health care bill and tax bills. If you want to fight for net neutrality you better turn out to vote for candidates who support your position. At the end of the day control of Congress is the only way to ensure this.
llamataboot 9y ago
I agree. This fight is already lost. Other than that, I'm not going to wade into politics here on HN today (learned that lesson the hard way a few times) other than to say I think we are at a point where actual representative democracy is at stake over the next couple years, and net neutrality, while a huge deal, is small potatoes compared to the fights we need to figure out how to win.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Representative democracy is in real danger, if not already lost. To me, what's damaging it is that representatives regard themselves as representing Team Red or Team Blue, instead of their constituents. I think the coming fight is over Constitutional limits to executive power. If we lose that fight, it's game over. If we win it, we can worry about trying to fix representative democracy.
  - llamataboot 9y ago
    It's almost tragic poetic justice that all the people on the right /and/ left that were trying to convince the middle that you don't concentrate so much unaccountable power in the Executive Branch during the Obama years only had to wait until the next election cycle to see what happens when someone truly unfit for that power grabs the reins.
dhimes 9y ago
Not to defend this administration, but we had to fight Obama on this too.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  Obama's administration got a lot of things wrong too, but at least we won that fight, right? At least they eventually responded to their constituency? I may have the facts wrong though, please correct me if so!
  - dhimes 9y ago
    Yep you’re right. I just want to make sure this isn’t a “left” versus “right” issue or an “anything but Trump” issue. This is about corporate sway of people who don’t have a lot of background in the subject.
- mmanfrin 9y ago
  We had to fight Wheeler, who then bowed to both public pressure and pressure from Obama to support net neutrality rules. https://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/tom-wheeler-net-neutrality-114069 https://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/tom-wheeler-net-neutr...
wyager 9y ago
> we need to flip control of Congress. Yes, that will fix everything.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  Nothing will fix everything. But that wasn't my claim, so I'm having trouble seeing how your comment is being made in good faith. Is this just a "whataboutism" to imply that Democrats are just as bad so it doesn't matter?
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Congress was feckless when the Democrats controlled it, too. Congress has been growing increasingly useless for the last 30 years at least. Something is breaking in US politics. Or, rather, several things are breaking - decency, civility, honesty, common sense, and probably several other things. I don't know what the root cause is, or even if there is only one.
- deadbeef404 9y ago
  Simon Sinek has an interesting hypothesis about the cause of the breakdown in politics in his book "Leaders Eat Last". I'm giving a very brief summary, but in that book he suggested that most US federal politicians used to live a lot of their careers in Washington DC, attend similar social events and send their children to the same schools, which helped them relate to each other (across party lines). It is suggested that the closeness created decency and civility between them, but now that a lot of them still live in their home states, they no longer see the opposition as similar to themselves, and it's become a "us vs them" kind of thing for everything.
noncoml 9y ago
I would say don't blame the administration. Blame the corps and don't wait to vote every 4 years in the elections, vote every day with your wallet. To start, be reactive, switch to T-Mobile or any telco that is pro-net neutrality Then start being pro-active. Look for bad patterns in companies and punish them. For example, Google says they support net-neutrality but are happy to block amazon devices from playing youtube. Maybe it is time to give a clear message to Google that behaviors like this are not accepted by you? Replace Google with any X company. Don't be surprised if in 20 years X-company will only allow you to access X-stuff on X-devices running on X-network. Money is what makes the world go around. Use your money to steer the world to the direction you want. Or, you know, just keep using Google and Verizon because it is more convenient. But in this case you lose your right to complain.
- llamataboot 9y ago
  The problem with that argument, is it's damn near impossible to simply buy your way out of a rigged system. It's a nice premise, shopping ethically, but much like recycling isn't going to stop climate change, there's only so much power an individual consumer has in a large and complex system with perverse incentives.
- jerkstate 9y ago
  T-Mobile promotes a service called "Binge On" which is anti-net-neutrality: https://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video.html https://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video.html Paying for a "fast lane" is anti-net-neutrality regardless of whether or not it is "pro-consumer"
  - creaghpatr 9y ago
    Consumers tend to cast votes in favor of pro-consumer policies
  - noncoml 9y ago
    > Paying for a "fast lane" is anti-net-neutrality Who is paying for "fast lane" in this case? Please do correct me if I am wrong, but the way I understand it, video providers don't have to pay T-Mobile to be part of binge-on.
dv_dt 9y ago
Flipping congress isn't something that is just going to happen spontaneously. The change will take work and coordination from many people to accomplish that goal. So engaging today isn't just about fixing this issue in this moment (which I'd agree is unlikely), but it's also about finding others who believe as you do and maybe crossing paths with them as part of a community protest activity on and offline, and helping to create communication networks that do help flip control of congress (but I'd add also reinvigorate the voice of more regular people) in the future.
kim_waxkoz 9y ago
"most corrupt ever" lmao dude. hyperbole is not welcome here. go back to reddit with that. HN is for facts. this administration is succeeding at so many things for true americans. please smarten up
pascalxus 9y ago
The problem is choice, or lack thereof. The root of the problem is we only have 2 choices: red vs blue. 2 choices is only slightly better than no choice (1 choice). With just 2 choices, almost no one gets what they want. And every 4 years, one party just undoes what the last party did. What we need is 50 different choices. Let each state do what it wants, give states most of the power. States should get most of the taxes, federal should get a small sliver. Federal government should be small, and only do things that can only be done at the federal level. States having all the power is how the US started out and that's how it was meant to be. We need to get back to that. The US is way too large for a 1 size fits all policy.
- lowbloodsugar 9y ago
  Oh happy friend! There is only one choice. All our congresspersons represent the rich and Princeton University did the analysis to prove it: https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig
- John_Cena 9y ago
  So any polling method besides first past the post? Sign me up
  - twobyfour 9y ago
    There's that and the fact that our federal representation being so heavily based on the arbitrary geographic divisions that are states is in practice a giant gerrymander in favor of rural voters. Some rural citizens of low population states (say, in Wyoming) have Senate votes that carry 100 times the weight of the Senate vote of a citizen of a large state like New York, California, or Texas. Their Congressional vote may have nearly triple the weight of that of a city dweller simply because of minimum district sizes in states with more than one district, and their Presidential vote 8x because the 2 extra electoral votes corresponding to the senate seats are diluted among fewer congressional districts. As long as we have this system, our democracy and the ideal of "one person, one vote" is a joke.

paulddraper 9y ago

> they. do. not. care. about. us. One might wonder how they got half the votes when the other side cared. so. much. about. us.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
Actually, they didn't get half the votes. And the tribalism that's rampant in our politics today means that many voters are making choices based on lies and misinformation.
- rdruxn 9y ago
  But good thing you know for certain you’re above all that!
  - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
    I'm not above falling victim to bad sources, confirmation bias, or other foibles of human knowledge, but I try to be aware of that and guard against it. Not perfectly, I'm sure, but that imperfection doesn't mean that we all have an equal grounding in the truth. This downward spiral into a crisis of epistemology ("who can really know anything for sure? there are so many lies out there! there is no way to discern truth!") is a fundamental strategy of authoritarian regimes (Russia), and it's being put to good use in this country. EDIT: typo
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      I think it's a fundamental strategy of Russia to try to do that to us. I think they're being fairly effective, too. Note well: I am not saying that this is all Russia's fault. But I think that there is evidence that they're trying to do exactly this to us.
blacksmith_tb 9y ago
It's clear where this debate is going. But to take us back to where we started, I would suggest that it's highly unlikely that a Clinton-administration FCC would be preparing to repeal the Title II protections for broadband. Not that I don't care about plenty of other issues, but the difference on this one seems clear.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  Agreed. The OP was all over the map, but as far as NN, it's very unlikely that Clinton FCC would have repealed it.
williamdclt 9y ago
As a non-american, both side seem to be equally part of "they". H. Clinton is only the "other side" of Trump because the american politic system is de facto bipartite. Which easily answer one's wonder: "they" did not only get half the vote, "they" got all of them. To the question "how did they got the vote to be finalist", I'm afraid I don't have a better answer that the one that's repeated and repeated so much that it's becoming a gimmick: money, media, fear and stupidity

marcoperaza 9y ago

Have you considered that maybe there are thoughtful reasons why people might disagree with your policy views? If you really can't understand conservative policy aside from it being "corrupt, craven, citizen-hostile and spiteful", then I don't think you're giving the issues an objective analysis.

jayess 9y ago
Disagreement is no longer permitted. No matter which "side" you're on, the other side is relegated to a platitude.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  Perfectly said, but ironically, since I'm not on "the other side" here from a political perspective. I voted for Bush twice, Obama once, didn't vote in 2012 (sadly) but would have voted for Romney, and wouldn't be saying any of this if Mike Pence was president. But amusingly, you assume that my disapproval of Trump means that I'm "on the other side" and just spouting platitudes. Ironic.
  - ColanR 9y ago
    eh, I only got the impression you were "on the other side" when you mentioned flipping control of congress.
    - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
      For better or worse (probably worse) we have a two party system, and one party has full control of Congress and the executive branch. So "flipping control" in this case means breaking that lock on power. I don't really want Democrats to hold Congress and the White House either.
ryanwaggoner 9y ago
My view on this administration is about more than their policy positions. For the record, I grew up conservative, my whole family is, I'm fairly libertarian in my views, and I didn't vote for either major party due to their policy positions. I understand conservative policy perfectly well.

40acres 9y ago

Agreed. I've been following this administration closely in the past year. It appears that they do nothing in good faith. Just look at how Congress tried to pass the health care bill and tax bills. If you want to fight for net neutrality you better turn out to vote for candidates who support your position. At the end of the day control of Congress is the only way to ensure this.

llamataboot 9y ago

I agree. This fight is already lost. Other than that, I'm not going to wade into politics here on HN today (learned that lesson the hard way a few times) other than to say I think we are at a point where actual representative democracy is at stake over the next couple years, and net neutrality, while a huge deal, is small potatoes compared to the fights we need to figure out how to win.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Representative democracy is in real danger, if not already lost. To me, what's damaging it is that representatives regard themselves as representing Team Red or Team Blue, instead of their constituents. I think the coming fight is over Constitutional limits to executive power. If we lose that fight, it's game over. If we win it, we can worry about trying to fix representative democracy.
- llamataboot 9y ago
  It's almost tragic poetic justice that all the people on the right /and/ left that were trying to convince the middle that you don't concentrate so much unaccountable power in the Executive Branch during the Obama years only had to wait until the next election cycle to see what happens when someone truly unfit for that power grabs the reins.

dhimes 9y ago

Not to defend this administration, but we had to fight Obama on this too.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
Obama's administration got a lot of things wrong too, but at least we won that fight, right? At least they eventually responded to their constituency? I may have the facts wrong though, please correct me if so!
- dhimes 9y ago
  Yep you’re right. I just want to make sure this isn’t a “left” versus “right” issue or an “anything but Trump” issue. This is about corporate sway of people who don’t have a lot of background in the subject.
mmanfrin 9y ago
We had to fight Wheeler, who then bowed to both public pressure and pressure from Obama to support net neutrality rules. https://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/tom-wheeler-net-neutrality-114069 https://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/tom-wheeler-net-neutr...

wyager 9y ago

> we need to flip control of Congress. Yes, that will fix everything.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
Nothing will fix everything. But that wasn't my claim, so I'm having trouble seeing how your comment is being made in good faith. Is this just a "whataboutism" to imply that Democrats are just as bad so it doesn't matter?

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

Congress was feckless when the Democrats controlled it, too. Congress has been growing increasingly useless for the last 30 years at least. Something is breaking in US politics. Or, rather, several things are breaking - decency, civility, honesty, common sense, and probably several other things. I don't know what the root cause is, or even if there is only one.

deadbeef404 9y ago
Simon Sinek has an interesting hypothesis about the cause of the breakdown in politics in his book "Leaders Eat Last". I'm giving a very brief summary, but in that book he suggested that most US federal politicians used to live a lot of their careers in Washington DC, attend similar social events and send their children to the same schools, which helped them relate to each other (across party lines). It is suggested that the closeness created decency and civility between them, but now that a lot of them still live in their home states, they no longer see the opposition as similar to themselves, and it's become a "us vs them" kind of thing for everything.

noncoml 9y ago

I would say don't blame the administration. Blame the corps and don't wait to vote every 4 years in the elections, vote every day with your wallet. To start, be reactive, switch to T-Mobile or any telco that is pro-net neutrality Then start being pro-active. Look for bad patterns in companies and punish them. For example, Google says they support net-neutrality but are happy to block amazon devices from playing youtube. Maybe it is time to give a clear message to Google that behaviors like this are not accepted by you? Replace Google with any X company. Don't be surprised if in 20 years X-company will only allow you to access X-stuff on X-devices running on X-network. Money is what makes the world go around. Use your money to steer the world to the direction you want. Or, you know, just keep using Google and Verizon because it is more convenient. But in this case you lose your right to complain.

llamataboot 9y ago
The problem with that argument, is it's damn near impossible to simply buy your way out of a rigged system. It's a nice premise, shopping ethically, but much like recycling isn't going to stop climate change, there's only so much power an individual consumer has in a large and complex system with perverse incentives.
jerkstate 9y ago
T-Mobile promotes a service called "Binge On" which is anti-net-neutrality: https://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video.html https://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video.html Paying for a "fast lane" is anti-net-neutrality regardless of whether or not it is "pro-consumer"
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  Consumers tend to cast votes in favor of pro-consumer policies
- noncoml 9y ago
  > Paying for a "fast lane" is anti-net-neutrality Who is paying for "fast lane" in this case? Please do correct me if I am wrong, but the way I understand it, video providers don't have to pay T-Mobile to be part of binge-on.

dv_dt 9y ago

Flipping congress isn't something that is just going to happen spontaneously. The change will take work and coordination from many people to accomplish that goal. So engaging today isn't just about fixing this issue in this moment (which I'd agree is unlikely), but it's also about finding others who believe as you do and maybe crossing paths with them as part of a community protest activity on and offline, and helping to create communication networks that do help flip control of congress (but I'd add also reinvigorate the voice of more regular people) in the future.

kim_waxkoz 9y ago

"most corrupt ever" lmao dude. hyperbole is not welcome here. go back to reddit with that. HN is for facts. this administration is succeeding at so many things for true americans. please smarten up

pascalxus 9y ago

The problem is choice, or lack thereof. The root of the problem is we only have 2 choices: red vs blue. 2 choices is only slightly better than no choice (1 choice). With just 2 choices, almost no one gets what they want. And every 4 years, one party just undoes what the last party did. What we need is 50 different choices. Let each state do what it wants, give states most of the power. States should get most of the taxes, federal should get a small sliver. Federal government should be small, and only do things that can only be done at the federal level. States having all the power is how the US started out and that's how it was meant to be. We need to get back to that. The US is way too large for a 1 size fits all policy.

lowbloodsugar 9y ago
Oh happy friend! There is only one choice. All our congresspersons represent the rich and Princeton University did the analysis to prove it: https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig
John_Cena 9y ago
So any polling method besides first past the post? Sign me up
- twobyfour 9y ago
  There's that and the fact that our federal representation being so heavily based on the arbitrary geographic divisions that are states is in practice a giant gerrymander in favor of rural voters. Some rural citizens of low population states (say, in Wyoming) have Senate votes that carry 100 times the weight of the Senate vote of a citizen of a large state like New York, California, or Texas. Their Congressional vote may have nearly triple the weight of that of a city dweller simply because of minimum district sizes in states with more than one district, and their Presidential vote 8x because the 2 extra electoral votes corresponding to the senate seats are diluted among fewer congressional districts. As long as we have this system, our democracy and the ideal of "one person, one vote" is a joke.