6 ms·

Why do you presume that net neutrality isn’t among the most pressing for OP? There are few issues where a majority of both Republicans and Democrats both agree

by sykh 8y ago

Why do you presume that net neutrality isn’t among the most pressing for OP? There are few issues where a majority of both Republicans and Democrats both agree. It seems like a worthy issue to hinge a vote on.

jacquesm 8y ago
Because I follow American politics pretty closely for a foreigner and it would appear to me that if the house is on fire the color of the sidewall isn't top priority.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  To many peoole, neutrality isn't a color of the sidewalk issue, it's a house on fire issue, because it concerns control of communication content in a major channel of public communication by a narrow band of actors vs. guaranteed freedom for lawful communication on that channel.
  - gremlinsinc 8y ago
    To add to that - we already have fake news along ALL political spectrums, and propaganda and lies coming from fake and legit places, to further be told what we can / can't view because of net neutrality, or for corporations to ban content themselves or make you pay to view certain websites moves us further into censorship territory like China. -- We definitely need to ensure that the internet stays as open as possible, if not we may need to create a new decentralized uncensorable internet like in Silicon Valley where net neutrality cannot be revoked.
  - NeoBasilisk 8y ago
    It is ok for net neutrality to be someone's number 1 issue as long as they recognize that they are likely viewing issues from a position of tremendous privilege.
    - hueving 8y ago
      It's okay even if they don't recognize it. Every issue in the US is one of tremendous privilege. Recognizing that doesn't change anything.
      - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
        If you're middle-class or above perhaps. The US is not a country I'd want to be poor in.
        hueving 8y ago
        China and India are both worse to be poor in, which still makes it a position of privilege compared to a significant portion of the world population. That's why "check your privilege" is such a stupid statement.
- alanbernstein 8y ago
  I see the death of net neutrality as a first step toward extremely effective censorship of electronic media. Media control like what sinclair is doing is already dangerous enough. Restoring net neutrality is close to top priority.
- sykh 8y ago
  That is mighty patronizing of you to tell someone that their concerns aren’t worthy enough. A majority of Americans who are registered to vote don't. There is an abundance of apathy in the U.S. toward the political process. Here we have someone willing to go so far as to contact their elected representative and you respond as you did. Off the top of my head I can’t name another issue that has support by majorties of both parties. This is an issue that is most likely to gain sympathy of Republican senators and most likely to result in an instance of the peoples' interest outwaying corporate interests. Instead of encouragement we have jaquesm here to let us know that you follow American politics pretty closely and we should all concentrate on something else. I do not subscribe to your patronizing attitude.
  - wilsonnb 8y ago
    I'm not a foreigner and I think the comment you're responding to is spot on. Are we just supposed to pretend that all issues are equal? People aren't going to die because the nets aren't neutral. People are going to die based on our health care policy, whether we go to war, whether we can prevent nuclear proliferation. The author of the comment you call patronizing made no statement on whether or not he's happy that people are involved in the political process. I know I'm happy about it, but I also think single issue voting on net neutrality is stupid. These views are not linked. In summary, net neutrality is important but there are more important issues in America at the moment. It's not patronizing to point that out.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Are we just supposed to pretend that all issues are equal? People aren't going to die because the nets aren't neutral. Probably not very many as a first-order effect, no. > People are going to die based on our health care policy, whether we go to war, whether we can prevent nuclear proliferation. And a narrow range of corporations with a fairly tight alignment on policy preferences controlling media access affects long term ability of the public to understand thode issues, organize efforts around them, and achieve positive results. Which is why a lot wide-view activist organizations that aren't particularly focussed on tech issues have made it a priority, when they do normally focus on the issues you have concerns about make it a priority.
- imh 8y ago
  The analogy is closer to the house being on fire, but the landlord 100% won't budge on that, so you might as well ask them for a glass of water, which you have at least some chance of getting.
smsm42 8y ago
I would believe it when I see a million people marching in DC for it. This issue is tiny and insignificant compared to major ones in US politics, however you personally and your peer group feel about it. And the "majority" is just a sleight of hand - you ask people "do you want to access all sites on the internet for free", people enthusiastically say "yes" and you interpret it as overwhelming support for a specific highly technical policy decision that these people never heard of, have no opinion of and probably couldn't distinguish pre-2015 internet regulations from post-2015 internet regulations even if their life depended on it. Which it most certainly doesn't, so they wouldn't really care either way.

by sykh 8y ago

jacquesm 8y ago

Because I follow American politics pretty closely for a foreigner and it would appear to me that if the house is on fire the color of the sidewall isn't top priority.

dragonwriter 8y ago
To many peoole, neutrality isn't a color of the sidewalk issue, it's a house on fire issue, because it concerns control of communication content in a major channel of public communication by a narrow band of actors vs. guaranteed freedom for lawful communication on that channel.
- gremlinsinc 8y ago
  To add to that - we already have fake news along ALL political spectrums, and propaganda and lies coming from fake and legit places, to further be told what we can / can't view because of net neutrality, or for corporations to ban content themselves or make you pay to view certain websites moves us further into censorship territory like China. -- We definitely need to ensure that the internet stays as open as possible, if not we may need to create a new decentralized uncensorable internet like in Silicon Valley where net neutrality cannot be revoked.
- NeoBasilisk 8y ago
  It is ok for net neutrality to be someone's number 1 issue as long as they recognize that they are likely viewing issues from a position of tremendous privilege.
  - hueving 8y ago
    It's okay even if they don't recognize it. Every issue in the US is one of tremendous privilege. Recognizing that doesn't change anything.
    - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      If you're middle-class or above perhaps. The US is not a country I'd want to be poor in.
      - hueving 8y ago
        China and India are both worse to be poor in, which still makes it a position of privilege compared to a significant portion of the world population. That's why "check your privilege" is such a stupid statement.
alanbernstein 8y ago
I see the death of net neutrality as a first step toward extremely effective censorship of electronic media. Media control like what sinclair is doing is already dangerous enough. Restoring net neutrality is close to top priority.
sykh 8y ago
That is mighty patronizing of you to tell someone that their concerns aren’t worthy enough. A majority of Americans who are registered to vote don't. There is an abundance of apathy in the U.S. toward the political process. Here we have someone willing to go so far as to contact their elected representative and you respond as you did. Off the top of my head I can’t name another issue that has support by majorties of both parties. This is an issue that is most likely to gain sympathy of Republican senators and most likely to result in an instance of the peoples' interest outwaying corporate interests. Instead of encouragement we have jaquesm here to let us know that you follow American politics pretty closely and we should all concentrate on something else. I do not subscribe to your patronizing attitude.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  I'm not a foreigner and I think the comment you're responding to is spot on. Are we just supposed to pretend that all issues are equal? People aren't going to die because the nets aren't neutral. People are going to die based on our health care policy, whether we go to war, whether we can prevent nuclear proliferation. The author of the comment you call patronizing made no statement on whether or not he's happy that people are involved in the political process. I know I'm happy about it, but I also think single issue voting on net neutrality is stupid. These views are not linked. In summary, net neutrality is important but there are more important issues in America at the moment. It's not patronizing to point that out.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Are we just supposed to pretend that all issues are equal? People aren't going to die because the nets aren't neutral. Probably not very many as a first-order effect, no. > People are going to die based on our health care policy, whether we go to war, whether we can prevent nuclear proliferation. And a narrow range of corporations with a fairly tight alignment on policy preferences controlling media access affects long term ability of the public to understand thode issues, organize efforts around them, and achieve positive results. Which is why a lot wide-view activist organizations that aren't particularly focussed on tech issues have made it a priority, when they do normally focus on the issues you have concerns about make it a priority.
imh 8y ago
The analogy is closer to the house being on fire, but the landlord 100% won't budge on that, so you might as well ask them for a glass of water, which you have at least some chance of getting.

smsm42 8y ago

I would believe it when I see a million people marching in DC for it. This issue is tiny and insignificant compared to major ones in US politics, however you personally and your peer group feel about it. And the "majority" is just a sleight of hand - you ask people "do you want to access all sites on the internet for free", people enthusiastically say "yes" and you interpret it as overwhelming support for a specific highly technical policy decision that these people never heard of, have no opinion of and probably couldn't distinguish pre-2015 internet regulations from post-2015 internet regulations even if their life depended on it. Which it most certainly doesn't, so they wouldn't really care either way.