10 ms·

FCC Inspector General to Investigate Ajit Pai Over Sinclair Deal

86 points by catalin_dev 9y ago

Saloy 9y ago
ahahahaha
Steltek 9y ago
And when the IG reaches the obvious conclusion that Pai is making laws to benefit one and only one party, to ensure Americans get only one twisted view, what then? Nothing. Because nothing will change as long as the GOP has a scrap of power. Republican voters will forgive every outrage because they've been brainwashed.
- minikites 9y ago
  You're probably going to get downvoted because "both sides are the same" but they really aren't. Only one party is doing this.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > You're probably going to get downvoted because "both sides are the same" but they really aren't. Only one party is doing this. This is the height of arrogance. Either major party can be characterized as the reigning party of broken promises and slime. Both of them will represent their own policies as of six years prior as reprehensible when the opposing party runs on those same policies; and both will use whatever power the electorate gives them to enrich themselves (or at least their own cause), if that is an option.
    - outsidetheparty 9y ago
      You don't have to look at how the parties represent themselves or each other. You just have to look at their actions. Neither party is perfect, of course, but if you can look at the world today and claim "both sides" are equally at fault you're.... ...well, you're probably a Republican.
    - criley2 9y ago
      False equivalence is a powerful form of propaganda in heavy use today. It is our duty to be objective and rational, and that requires us to challenge and reject "false equivalence" arguments whether it's Putin, or Assad, or Duerte, or Erdogan rationalizing their despotic government or US Republicans rationalizing their unprecedented and unequal malpractice in American government. I feel that anyone who dares suggest that "both parties are the same" is so fundamentally ignorant that they're suffering from Dunning Kruger / illusory knowledge. One only needs to read about "starving the beast" (a nefarious legislative plan of cutting taxes and not spending, to intentionally manufacture budget crises surrounding debt, to cut social welfare programs) or the Project for a New American Century (Republican PAC in 1999 which planned the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran and Syria in the early 90's before GWB re-invaded the middle east -- that list sound familiar?) to understand how the modern assault on Liberal Democratic order in the West was planned and executed. I'm just so tired of false equivalence.
      - SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
        > "a nefarious legislative plan of cutting taxes and not spending, to intentionally manufacture budget crises surrounding debt, to cut social welfare programs" That's an odd thing to cite as it really isn't a form of corruption. A limited federal government is a core pillar of conservatism and the republican party. That "nefarious" plan is the what they (and many right-voters) consider the most viable strategy for reducing the size and scope of the federal government. I think you'll find more instances of corruption/pandering/populism on the right, in the places where they are expanding the federal government. Its a bit like calling democrats corrupt because they have a "nefarious" plans to confiscate more of your money (in the form of taxes) to pay for federal programs. I find this is the way many of the back-n-forths go in the "party x is more corrupt" game. <insert party here> is so demonized in the minds of their opponents, literally acting in accordance with their political philosophy appears like a form of corruption. I guess the "they want to kill your babies!" style rhetoric actually works.
    - VVyattPrentice 9y ago
      The fallacy you are absokutely running with here is "false equivalence." Yes the Democrat party is slimy self-serving punters. But they're not nearly as good at it as the R's. Even acceptingthere isn't a difference in kind (I happen to think there is) but surely you would admit there is a difference in degree.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    When exactly have the Democrats worked to stop the ongoing media concentration?
    - outsidetheparty 9y ago
      Yeah! Democrats! What have they ever done for us? Except for putting the internet common carrier regulations in place in the first place for Pai to tear down. Or making antitrust law reform a core plank in the party platform. Just for a couple of examples. > Over the last thirty years, courts and permissive regulators have allowed large companies to get larger, resulting in higher prices and limited consumer choice in daily expenses such as travel, cable, and food and beverages. And because concentrated market power leads to concentrated political power, these companies deploy armies of lobbyists to increase their stranglehold on Washington. https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017/07/A-Better-Deal-on-Competition-and-Costs-1.pdf https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017/07/A-Bet...
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        >Democrats! What have they ever done for us? Except for putting the internet common carrier regulations in place in the first place for Pai to tear down. This is unrelated to the concentration of media. Plus, if they cared about that, they should have passed the law ensuring it when it hit the floor in 2009. You realize that quote basically says "we've helped this happen for the past thirty years, but we've changed now!"
        outsidetheparty 9y ago
        You may well be right that it's too little too late. But the choice is between "we've changed", or "We've helped this happen for the past thirty years, and now we're gonna triple down, baby".
        boomboomsubban 9y ago
        They've already shown the change to be a lie by opposing candidates with new ideas in primaries.
- chickenfries 9y ago
  Yep, the same with Mueller, nothing will happen until the Republicans lose the 2018 midterms. But the investigation is still important, even the current congress won't act on it, a future one might.
  - wavefunction 9y ago
    I agree, the facts of the investigation are being recorded and that's important just for the historical record.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > Republican voters will forgive every outrage because they've been brainwashed. "It's only an utterly rigged primary, nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.", "I swear none of the records I destroyed after generating them illegally were sensitive or scandalous", "Come on guys, I didn't sell that much uranium to Russia at cut rates.", "If it weren't for that stupid video that nobody watched, nobody would've attacked the facilities in Benghazi", "It's perfectly okay that Clinton Foundation money marked for assistance to Haitians was instead used to fund my daughter's wedding." Edit: or how's this for some fun: http://archive.is/ZX27N http://archive.is/ZX27N If you think habitual (D) voters are any more reasonable and unforgiving than (R) voters, I don't think we're looking at the same country.
  - RhodesianHunter 9y ago
    You do realize that half of the things you listed are demonstrably untrue for anyone with Google and critical thinking skills?
    - microcolonel 9y ago
      Mind pointing out which ones, and which demonstrations? I know at least one habitual Democrat voter that has acknowledged each of these in conversation. The wedding one is a bit tough since it relies solely on rumor, so I'd accept that as not solid, but the other ones are either paraphrases of things somebody has said on record, or provable with public facts. One is not "half" of five.
  - spurcell93 9y ago
    Though I find your examples laughable, I do agree that constituents on both sides are generally uninformed and lack critical thinking skills. Sad!
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Pride cometh before the fall.
  - VVyattPrentice 9y ago
    And we all fall down.
- vlunkr 9y ago
  Somewhere else in the world, a republican just grouped all democrats together and called them brainwashed. And the argument they presented was as good as yours (that is, they didn't have one). Just maybe, the "brainwashed" ones are the people that buy so heavily into the partisan politics the media sells them to keep them in a constant state of outrage at the other team.
sloan_royal 9y ago
title is wrong, investigation has been going on since the end of last year
TheAceOfHearts 9y ago
Since this is marked as a dupe, I think this was the previous discussion [0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16387050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16387050
Cknight70 9y ago
I live in a red state and e-mailed all of my representatives about net neutrality and I got a response back from all but one of them. From their responses, and my own research I've concluded there is another side to this story than just Republicans treating this like a partisan issue or votes being bought out from Comcast so large cable companies can make more money. All my representatives expressed support for repealing title 2, saying things like it hurts competition, creates a higher barrier of entry for competing companies, and the majority said they were going to be working to ensure laws are made to have true net neutrality.[0] From the responses from my representatives, and from the research I have verified from them since then, I can say title two was likely not the solution we were looking for, I would urge you to look for viewpoints against title two as well, and remember to stay skeptical to avoid fake news from all sides of the political spectrum. [0]Excerpt from one of my congressman, I'd type up one of my senator's responses but he sent me physical mail as a reply which I don't have on me: "Like you, I believe [people in our state] should have access to a free and open internet. Following the FCC's vote, I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to enact legislation that will preserve net neutrality principles while ensuring that the Internet is kept free from government regulations so it can continue to thrive and improve our connectivity and economy."
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  And you believe them? The big money interests promised not to violate net neutrality, if only we would remove all the rules first? And we're supposed to believe that?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Cknight70 9y ago
    Not sure if the internet freedom bill was written maliciously, or with a "one problem at a time" approach. I would have loved for there to be a proposal to replace title 2 with something better, but maybe Ajit Pai knew straight up removing it would be more popular with the Republicans interests. I believe the "violations" people cite are very blown up, example being Comcast blocking bit torrent, they worked with bit torrent and made their service much more efficient, win win for everyone. That being said I do not trust big cable companies, and that's why I don't share the "The free market will take care of itself" approach some republicans seem to have, which ignores there is no competition in some areas to begin with. I'm pro net neutrality, and am hoping some future law can ensure this without being inherently suffocating for ISPs.
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
If only Ajit Pai knew what the people he bends over for, and whom he thinks hes an equal by doing their bidding, think about him and the names they call him behind his back...

86 points by catalin_dev 9y ago

ahahahaha

And when the IG reaches the obvious conclusion that Pai is making laws to benefit one and only one party, to ensure Americans get only one twisted view, what then? Nothing. Because nothing will change as long as the GOP has a scrap of power. Republican voters will forgive every outrage because they've been brainwashed.

minikites 9y ago
You're probably going to get downvoted because "both sides are the same" but they really aren't. Only one party is doing this.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > You're probably going to get downvoted because "both sides are the same" but they really aren't. Only one party is doing this. This is the height of arrogance. Either major party can be characterized as the reigning party of broken promises and slime. Both of them will represent their own policies as of six years prior as reprehensible when the opposing party runs on those same policies; and both will use whatever power the electorate gives them to enrich themselves (or at least their own cause), if that is an option.
  - outsidetheparty 9y ago
    You don't have to look at how the parties represent themselves or each other. You just have to look at their actions. Neither party is perfect, of course, but if you can look at the world today and claim "both sides" are equally at fault you're.... ...well, you're probably a Republican.
  - criley2 9y ago
    False equivalence is a powerful form of propaganda in heavy use today. It is our duty to be objective and rational, and that requires us to challenge and reject "false equivalence" arguments whether it's Putin, or Assad, or Duerte, or Erdogan rationalizing their despotic government or US Republicans rationalizing their unprecedented and unequal malpractice in American government. I feel that anyone who dares suggest that "both parties are the same" is so fundamentally ignorant that they're suffering from Dunning Kruger / illusory knowledge. One only needs to read about "starving the beast" (a nefarious legislative plan of cutting taxes and not spending, to intentionally manufacture budget crises surrounding debt, to cut social welfare programs) or the Project for a New American Century (Republican PAC in 1999 which planned the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran and Syria in the early 90's before GWB re-invaded the middle east -- that list sound familiar?) to understand how the modern assault on Liberal Democratic order in the West was planned and executed. I'm just so tired of false equivalence.
    - SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
      > "a nefarious legislative plan of cutting taxes and not spending, to intentionally manufacture budget crises surrounding debt, to cut social welfare programs" That's an odd thing to cite as it really isn't a form of corruption. A limited federal government is a core pillar of conservatism and the republican party. That "nefarious" plan is the what they (and many right-voters) consider the most viable strategy for reducing the size and scope of the federal government. I think you'll find more instances of corruption/pandering/populism on the right, in the places where they are expanding the federal government. Its a bit like calling democrats corrupt because they have a "nefarious" plans to confiscate more of your money (in the form of taxes) to pay for federal programs. I find this is the way many of the back-n-forths go in the "party x is more corrupt" game. <insert party here> is so demonized in the minds of their opponents, literally acting in accordance with their political philosophy appears like a form of corruption. I guess the "they want to kill your babies!" style rhetoric actually works.
  - VVyattPrentice 9y ago
    The fallacy you are absokutely running with here is "false equivalence." Yes the Democrat party is slimy self-serving punters. But they're not nearly as good at it as the R's. Even acceptingthere isn't a difference in kind (I happen to think there is) but surely you would admit there is a difference in degree.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  When exactly have the Democrats worked to stop the ongoing media concentration?
  - outsidetheparty 9y ago
    Yeah! Democrats! What have they ever done for us? Except for putting the internet common carrier regulations in place in the first place for Pai to tear down. Or making antitrust law reform a core plank in the party platform. Just for a couple of examples. > Over the last thirty years, courts and permissive regulators have allowed large companies to get larger, resulting in higher prices and limited consumer choice in daily expenses such as travel, cable, and food and beverages. And because concentrated market power leads to concentrated political power, these companies deploy armies of lobbyists to increase their stranglehold on Washington. https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017/07/A-Better-Deal-on-Competition-and-Costs-1.pdf https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017/07/A-Bet...
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      >Democrats! What have they ever done for us? Except for putting the internet common carrier regulations in place in the first place for Pai to tear down. This is unrelated to the concentration of media. Plus, if they cared about that, they should have passed the law ensuring it when it hit the floor in 2009. You realize that quote basically says "we've helped this happen for the past thirty years, but we've changed now!"
      - outsidetheparty 9y ago
        You may well be right that it's too little too late. But the choice is between "we've changed", or "We've helped this happen for the past thirty years, and now we're gonna triple down, baby".
        boomboomsubban 9y ago
        They've already shown the change to be a lie by opposing candidates with new ideas in primaries.
chickenfries 9y ago
Yep, the same with Mueller, nothing will happen until the Republicans lose the 2018 midterms. But the investigation is still important, even the current congress won't act on it, a future one might.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  I agree, the facts of the investigation are being recorded and that's important just for the historical record.
microcolonel 9y ago
> Republican voters will forgive every outrage because they've been brainwashed. "It's only an utterly rigged primary, nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.", "I swear none of the records I destroyed after generating them illegally were sensitive or scandalous", "Come on guys, I didn't sell that much uranium to Russia at cut rates.", "If it weren't for that stupid video that nobody watched, nobody would've attacked the facilities in Benghazi", "It's perfectly okay that Clinton Foundation money marked for assistance to Haitians was instead used to fund my daughter's wedding." Edit: or how's this for some fun: http://archive.is/ZX27N http://archive.is/ZX27N If you think habitual (D) voters are any more reasonable and unforgiving than (R) voters, I don't think we're looking at the same country.
- RhodesianHunter 9y ago
  You do realize that half of the things you listed are demonstrably untrue for anyone with Google and critical thinking skills?
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    Mind pointing out which ones, and which demonstrations? I know at least one habitual Democrat voter that has acknowledged each of these in conversation. The wedding one is a bit tough since it relies solely on rumor, so I'd accept that as not solid, but the other ones are either paraphrases of things somebody has said on record, or provable with public facts. One is not "half" of five.
- spurcell93 9y ago
  Though I find your examples laughable, I do agree that constituents on both sides are generally uninformed and lack critical thinking skills. Sad!
conanbatt 9y ago
Pride cometh before the fall.
- VVyattPrentice 9y ago
  And we all fall down.
vlunkr 9y ago
Somewhere else in the world, a republican just grouped all democrats together and called them brainwashed. And the argument they presented was as good as yours (that is, they didn't have one). Just maybe, the "brainwashed" ones are the people that buy so heavily into the partisan politics the media sells them to keep them in a constant state of outrage at the other team.

sloan_royal 9y ago

title is wrong, investigation has been going on since the end of last year

TheAceOfHearts 9y ago

Since this is marked as a dupe, I think this was the previous discussion [0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16387050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16387050

Cknight70 9y ago

I live in a red state and e-mailed all of my representatives about net neutrality and I got a response back from all but one of them. From their responses, and my own research I've concluded there is another side to this story than just Republicans treating this like a partisan issue or votes being bought out from Comcast so large cable companies can make more money. All my representatives expressed support for repealing title 2, saying things like it hurts competition, creates a higher barrier of entry for competing companies, and the majority said they were going to be working to ensure laws are made to have true net neutrality.[0] From the responses from my representatives, and from the research I have verified from them since then, I can say title two was likely not the solution we were looking for, I would urge you to look for viewpoints against title two as well, and remember to stay skeptical to avoid fake news from all sides of the political spectrum. [0]Excerpt from one of my congressman, I'd type up one of my senator's responses but he sent me physical mail as a reply which I don't have on me: "Like you, I believe [people in our state] should have access to a free and open internet. Following the FCC's vote, I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to enact legislation that will preserve net neutrality principles while ensuring that the Internet is kept free from government regulations so it can continue to thrive and improve our connectivity and economy."

JoeAltmaier 9y ago
And you believe them? The big money interests promised not to violate net neutrality, if only we would remove all the rules first? And we're supposed to believe that?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Cknight70 9y ago
  Not sure if the internet freedom bill was written maliciously, or with a "one problem at a time" approach. I would have loved for there to be a proposal to replace title 2 with something better, but maybe Ajit Pai knew straight up removing it would be more popular with the Republicans interests. I believe the "violations" people cite are very blown up, example being Comcast blocking bit torrent, they worked with bit torrent and made their service much more efficient, win win for everyone. That being said I do not trust big cable companies, and that's why I don't share the "The free market will take care of itself" approach some republicans seem to have, which ignores there is no competition in some areas to begin with. I'm pro net neutrality, and am hoping some future law can ensure this without being inherently suffocating for ISPs.

throwawaymanbot 9y ago

If only Ajit Pai knew what the people he bends over for, and whom he thinks hes an equal by doing their bidding, think about him and the names they call him behind his back...