4 ms·

So I assume you are in support of Net Neutrality? Wouldn’t the correct thing to do in that case be to support politicians that are in favor of it, and oppose po

So I assume you are in support of Net Neutrality? Wouldn’t the correct thing to do in that case be to support politicians that are in favor of it, and oppose politicians that are against it? Obama could have done better, but I am satisfied that he did more than any other president, before or since, to establish Net Neutrality. I don't think it's productive to assign blame in situations where a politician helped, but didn't help enough by some arbitrary standard, especially in an adversarial political system like ours where the alternative is politicians that actively are trying to cause harm.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
The correct thing to do is to support politicians who work to ensure net neutrality. That does not describe the Democrats, at best they worked to ensure the courts would decide the fate of net neutrality.
- root_axis 9y ago
  > The correct thing to do is to support politicians who work to ensure net neutrality. I agree... we should support politicians based on their policies not based on their party, but it just so happens that the republican party is ideologically opposed to net-neutrality while the democratic party is, at a minimum, friendly towards the notion of net-neutrality, so democrats are really the only option if net-neutrality is your issue.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    If it's "my issue," the Democrats haven't shown themselves to be an option worth supporting. If my only other option is the Republicans, then I have no option worth supporting.
    - landryraccoon 9y ago
      > the Democrats haven't shown themselves to be an option worth supporting. What is your goal? Your goal clearly isn't actually maximizing the chances that Net Neutrality is adopted, since your strategy doesn't do that. I can only guess what your actual goal is; it seems to me it's maximizing some sort of ideological purity or set of other moral values?
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        Very few congressional seats actually have just two options. A third party win seems like the only chance that anyone will pass a bill, so I see it as the best chance of ensuring net neutrality. The official platform of the Democrats last election on net neutrality was roughly "we will not overturn the FCC ruling on net neutrality," while the Republicans ran on overturning that decision. Both platforms have the same result, a lengthy series of court cases deciding how broadband should be classified under the 1934 Communications act. There's a nugget of truth to the idea that voting for the party pretending to support net neutrality will lead to more favorable judges, but I don't suspect the Democrats would seek out judges based on their view on the issue. And, shockingly, I care about more than one issue. For example, the Democrats record on online privacy is atrocious. A chance at better judges on one issue isn't enough.
        root_axis 9y ago
        I think your criticism of the dems is totally fair and that simply giving lip-service to a policy doesn't actually solve a problem. With that stated, the third party option is demonstrably pointless with regard to advancing policy goals, so unless your third party candidate is a liberal independent that has a positive working relationship with the dems, they'll never be able to make any progress towards NN.
        boomboomsubban 9y ago
        Supporting a third part in the past had led to policy change, primarily with the antislavery parties turning into the Republican party. The chance of a similar event happening over net neutrality is slim, it's still the only way to vote for a party committed to ensuring net neutrality. As again, the Democrats stated position was to do nothing.
        root_axis 9y ago
        > primarily with the antislavery parties turning into the Republican party. I think the fact that you had to reach back 150 years to find a practical example demonstrates my point pretty well. It is clearly much more likely that we'd see NN policy pushed forward by one of the two parties before we'd see a 3rd party do it, to suggest otherwise is just wishful thinking.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

The correct thing to do is to support politicians who work to ensure net neutrality. That does not describe the Democrats, at best they worked to ensure the courts would decide the fate of net neutrality.

root_axis 9y ago
> The correct thing to do is to support politicians who work to ensure net neutrality. I agree... we should support politicians based on their policies not based on their party, but it just so happens that the republican party is ideologically opposed to net-neutrality while the democratic party is, at a minimum, friendly towards the notion of net-neutrality, so democrats are really the only option if net-neutrality is your issue.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  If it's "my issue," the Democrats haven't shown themselves to be an option worth supporting. If my only other option is the Republicans, then I have no option worth supporting.
  - landryraccoon 9y ago
    > the Democrats haven't shown themselves to be an option worth supporting. What is your goal? Your goal clearly isn't actually maximizing the chances that Net Neutrality is adopted, since your strategy doesn't do that. I can only guess what your actual goal is; it seems to me it's maximizing some sort of ideological purity or set of other moral values?
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      Very few congressional seats actually have just two options. A third party win seems like the only chance that anyone will pass a bill, so I see it as the best chance of ensuring net neutrality. The official platform of the Democrats last election on net neutrality was roughly "we will not overturn the FCC ruling on net neutrality," while the Republicans ran on overturning that decision. Both platforms have the same result, a lengthy series of court cases deciding how broadband should be classified under the 1934 Communications act. There's a nugget of truth to the idea that voting for the party pretending to support net neutrality will lead to more favorable judges, but I don't suspect the Democrats would seek out judges based on their view on the issue. And, shockingly, I care about more than one issue. For example, the Democrats record on online privacy is atrocious. A chance at better judges on one issue isn't enough.
      - root_axis 9y ago
        I think your criticism of the dems is totally fair and that simply giving lip-service to a policy doesn't actually solve a problem. With that stated, the third party option is demonstrably pointless with regard to advancing policy goals, so unless your third party candidate is a liberal independent that has a positive working relationship with the dems, they'll never be able to make any progress towards NN.
        boomboomsubban 9y ago
        Supporting a third part in the past had led to policy change, primarily with the antislavery parties turning into the Republican party. The chance of a similar event happening over net neutrality is slim, it's still the only way to vote for a party committed to ensuring net neutrality. As again, the Democrats stated position was to do nothing.
        root_axis 9y ago
        > primarily with the antislavery parties turning into the Republican party. I think the fact that you had to reach back 150 years to find a practical example demonstrates my point pretty well. It is clearly much more likely that we'd see NN policy pushed forward by one of the two parties before we'd see a 3rd party do it, to suggest otherwise is just wishful thinking.