5 ms·

Internal FCC Report Shows Republican Net Neutrality Narrative Is False

59 points by runesoerensen 9y ago

totalZero 9y ago
Labeling this false narrative as "Republican" is counterproductive to the cause of Net Neutrality, even if that label is appropriate. Putting about half of the US population in an adversarial position is not the most effective way to start a conversation that results in pro-Net-Neutrality sentiment. This is Pai's narrative, and that of companies like Verizon and Comcast. A more powerful pro-Net-Neutrality stance would be to frame the discussion as "we were duped by insiders and private interests," rather than "Republicans are wrong."
- foolrush 9y ago
  Look at the vote. It is an absolutely fact based statement. Sometimes being factual will rally the side required to win the war.
  - deedubaya 9y ago
    Sometimes making an us vs. them argument just deepens the divide in that process. This is something most Americans can be behind, regardless of party affiliation.
    - wvenable 9y ago
      It can be something most American would get behind regardless of party affiliation but we both know that specifically one party will be against it regardless of the benefit to society and democracy.
      - deedubaya 9y ago
        Wow, just wow. I thought your comment was a little troll-y, so I went to your comment history. > NN is also good for people and also has bipartisan support (from constituents) but just got repealed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15925416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15925416 So which is it, something Americans can support NN from both sides of the aisle, or just one side of the aisle?
        wvenable 9y ago
        I absolutely agree that Americans from both sides of the aisle can support net neutrality but one party will vote against it and one side of aisle will vote for that party regardless. I'd love to be wrong but that is exactly what happens.
        monocasa 9y ago
        Constituents support it from both sides of the aisle at very similar levels. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-americans-political-parties-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-am... Republican lawmakers however, have overwhelmingly either not supported or stayed quiet on the issue. https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-11-24-breaking-first-republican-lawmaker-to-publicly/ https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-11-24-breaking-f...
        lurr 9y ago
        Net neutrality has been turned into another party line issue at the government level (people are mostly in favour of it). If you don't like that, then complain to the party that keeps voting against it. Don't try to obfuscate facts.
  - JHonaker 9y ago
    You can be factual without inciting an immediate negative reaction. It’s same idea as the difference between “Terrorist blows up/shoots something” versus “Christian shoots up abortion clinic” or “Muslim suicide bomber”. Those people may be a part of particular sects but what you choose to highlight (especially in a headline) about them says a lot about you and the agenda you’re trying to push.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    I believe his point is that many people who follow politics follow parties emotionally rather than rationally. This is quite common in the US; it's very tribal, and by design. When it is framed as a "Republican," issue (which it certainly is), you've just lost a good chunk of the audience you are trying to convince. That is the counterproductive part.
    - foolrush 9y ago
      So don't convince them. Convince those that are already on side to rally and make calls. Doubly so when one side is at odds with the other side's values. History is a good guide here: When one side is against a value system, negotiating isn't an option. Fight them.
      - Clubber 9y ago
        >Convince those that are already on side to rally and make calls. Really? Do you not think that has been going on for the last year at least? It didn't do a lick of good either.
        foolrush 9y ago
        See second part. The power that be don't have your interests at hand. It is fight time.
        Clubber 9y ago
        So what does that entail? Write letters more vigerously?
        SpikeDad 9y ago
        Larger size fonts? Republicans are already immunized against public opinion - they know their base will vote for them regardless. It's gonna take a every non-right wing Republican voter to bond together and start voting for the candidate running against the Republican regardless of how they feel about them. Only by voting out Republicans in large numbers will they finally start paying attention to the public. I think the liberal, progressive factions need to realize their best actions are to vote against Republicans and for whatever mainstream Democrats are running. Sorry they might not be the ideal candidate but when a party like Republicans are in power they immediately start changing the rules making it so much more difficult to get them out of office.
- r00fus 9y ago
  > Putting about half of the US population in an adversarial position is not the most effective way to start a conversation that results in pro-Net-Neutrality sentiment. If you're going to complain about conflated numbers, then half the population (50%) shouldn't be the number you cite, but instead 18% as 82% of all voters support NN [1] based on polling. It's not a partisan issue except for the fact that the Republican appointed FCC members are pushing this through on a party-line vote. At some point the Republican/GOP branding has/will become synonymous with corruption and graft. [1] http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-of-voters-support-keeping-fccs-net-neutrality-rules http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-...
equalunique 9y ago
The title of this article seems to imply a lot more than the facts it establishes. The narrriative in question is "This Republican narrative of net neutrality as an Obama-led takeover of the internet" As someone who monitors a lot of republican, conservative, libertarian, and alt-right sources online, I personally have never encountered any anti-NN comments about an "Obama-led takeover." Many do have concerns over government takeover of the internet, but not once have I encountered someone who blamed it on Obama. I believe most right-leaning readers will see through this hole in the article's premise. Also, it would seem that because the point of the article's claim is largely moot, the practicality of having this OIG report made public seems pretty weak. I.e. a nothing-burger. Note that the demographic that this article dispariages can be quite dismissive of Vice, as it's seen as a left-leaning publication.

59 points by runesoerensen 9y ago

Labeling this false narrative as "Republican" is counterproductive to the cause of Net Neutrality, even if that label is appropriate. Putting about half of the US population in an adversarial position is not the most effective way to start a conversation that results in pro-Net-Neutrality sentiment. This is Pai's narrative, and that of companies like Verizon and Comcast. A more powerful pro-Net-Neutrality stance would be to frame the discussion as "we were duped by insiders and private interests," rather than "Republicans are wrong."

foolrush 9y ago
Look at the vote. It is an absolutely fact based statement. Sometimes being factual will rally the side required to win the war.
- deedubaya 9y ago
  Sometimes making an us vs. them argument just deepens the divide in that process. This is something most Americans can be behind, regardless of party affiliation.
  - wvenable 9y ago
    It can be something most American would get behind regardless of party affiliation but we both know that specifically one party will be against it regardless of the benefit to society and democracy.
    - deedubaya 9y ago
      Wow, just wow. I thought your comment was a little troll-y, so I went to your comment history. > NN is also good for people and also has bipartisan support (from constituents) but just got repealed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15925416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15925416 So which is it, something Americans can support NN from both sides of the aisle, or just one side of the aisle?
      - wvenable 9y ago
        I absolutely agree that Americans from both sides of the aisle can support net neutrality but one party will vote against it and one side of aisle will vote for that party regardless. I'd love to be wrong but that is exactly what happens.
      - monocasa 9y ago
        Constituents support it from both sides of the aisle at very similar levels. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-americans-political-parties-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-am... Republican lawmakers however, have overwhelmingly either not supported or stayed quiet on the issue. https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-11-24-breaking-first-republican-lawmaker-to-publicly/ https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-11-24-breaking-f...
      - lurr 9y ago
        Net neutrality has been turned into another party line issue at the government level (people are mostly in favour of it). If you don't like that, then complain to the party that keeps voting against it. Don't try to obfuscate facts.
- JHonaker 9y ago
  You can be factual without inciting an immediate negative reaction. It’s same idea as the difference between “Terrorist blows up/shoots something” versus “Christian shoots up abortion clinic” or “Muslim suicide bomber”. Those people may be a part of particular sects but what you choose to highlight (especially in a headline) about them says a lot about you and the agenda you’re trying to push.
- Clubber 9y ago
  I believe his point is that many people who follow politics follow parties emotionally rather than rationally. This is quite common in the US; it's very tribal, and by design. When it is framed as a "Republican," issue (which it certainly is), you've just lost a good chunk of the audience you are trying to convince. That is the counterproductive part.
  - foolrush 9y ago
    So don't convince them. Convince those that are already on side to rally and make calls. Doubly so when one side is at odds with the other side's values. History is a good guide here: When one side is against a value system, negotiating isn't an option. Fight them.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      >Convince those that are already on side to rally and make calls. Really? Do you not think that has been going on for the last year at least? It didn't do a lick of good either.
      - foolrush 9y ago
        See second part. The power that be don't have your interests at hand. It is fight time.
        Clubber 9y ago
        So what does that entail? Write letters more vigerously?
        SpikeDad 9y ago
        Larger size fonts? Republicans are already immunized against public opinion - they know their base will vote for them regardless. It's gonna take a every non-right wing Republican voter to bond together and start voting for the candidate running against the Republican regardless of how they feel about them. Only by voting out Republicans in large numbers will they finally start paying attention to the public. I think the liberal, progressive factions need to realize their best actions are to vote against Republicans and for whatever mainstream Democrats are running. Sorry they might not be the ideal candidate but when a party like Republicans are in power they immediately start changing the rules making it so much more difficult to get them out of office.
r00fus 9y ago
> Putting about half of the US population in an adversarial position is not the most effective way to start a conversation that results in pro-Net-Neutrality sentiment. If you're going to complain about conflated numbers, then half the population (50%) shouldn't be the number you cite, but instead 18% as 82% of all voters support NN [1] based on polling. It's not a partisan issue except for the fact that the Republican appointed FCC members are pushing this through on a party-line vote. At some point the Republican/GOP branding has/will become synonymous with corruption and graft. [1] http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-of-voters-support-keeping-fccs-net-neutrality-rules http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-...

equalunique 9y ago

The title of this article seems to imply a lot more than the facts it establishes. The narrriative in question is "This Republican narrative of net neutrality as an Obama-led takeover of the internet" As someone who monitors a lot of republican, conservative, libertarian, and alt-right sources online, I personally have never encountered any anti-NN comments about an "Obama-led takeover." Many do have concerns over government takeover of the internet, but not once have I encountered someone who blamed it on Obama. I believe most right-leaning readers will see through this hole in the article's premise. Also, it would seem that because the point of the article's claim is largely moot, the practicality of having this OIG report made public seems pretty weak. I.e. a nothing-burger. Note that the demographic that this article dispariages can be quite dismissive of Vice, as it's seen as a left-leaning publication.