6 ms·

My response from a Texas senator was that he "supports net neutrality" and then went on define net neutrality as the exact opposite of the commonly accepted mea

My response from a Texas senator was that he "supports net neutrality" and then went on define net neutrality as the exact opposite of the commonly accepted meaning.

swebs 8y ago
And that's probably what he honestly believes because that's how some lobbyist explained it to him. I think a huge chunk of America's problems would be solved just by getting rid of lobbyists.
- cies 8y ago
  > America's problems Every democracies problems. The problem with lobbies is that they allow "deeper pockets" to have "more influence", which is exactly what democracies should prevent. Thus big lobbies (especially the corporate funded ones, which ar by far teh larger part) are undermining the democratic process. We see the results of this all over the world.
- smsm42 8y ago
  You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? Or explain them, but people who do it would be called not "lobbyists" but "educators" and would be only allowed to say what agrees with some opinions, but not the others? Or allowing anybody explaining things to congressmen and just not calling it "lobbying" because it's a dirty word?
  - swebs 8y ago
    >You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? So the options are either 1. Get a biased source of information (along with donations $$$) from Comcast 2. Just throw your hands up in the air and declare that the problem is unknowable. Nope, Wikipedia doesn't exist. Neither does the library, your staff, or the actual bill itself. Comcast's lobbyist only. A person elected into one of the highest positions in the US is too incompetent to do their own research.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - dhimes 8y ago
      3. Require all meetings with lobbyists to be public- with video and transcript documentation. Mandatory jail time for those who don't comply.
      - mac01021 8y ago
        What constitutes a lobbyist? Must a congressman record every discussion he has with every person he meets, just in case the topic of conversation turns to public policy?
        tdb7893 8y ago
        We could broadcast the video on Bravo and call it "Real Senators of the US"! It would be like a better CSPAN. Edit: also we could call in votes like it's American Idol. I think we should try it, it couldn't be worse than what we have now
        dhimes 8y ago
        Here's a start: https://www.tripsavvy.com/faqs-about-lobbying-1039165 https://www.tripsavvy.com/faqs-about-lobbying-1039165 Example: https://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/register.html https://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/register.html There will certainly be attempts to end-run the disclosure, but in principle it's a regulated industry.
      - smsm42 8y ago
        There was something like this in California, public meetings law, called Brown Act. As I heard, it's not exactly working as intended http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2017/03/23/californias-open-meetings-law-became-gag-rule/ideas/connecting-california/ http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2017/03/23/californias-ope...
    - smsm42 8y ago
      All human sources of information are biased. That's why we have democracy - to duke it out in a market of ideas and find some common denominator that somehow summarizes people's opinions. True, this system is not perfect. But removing inputs would not make it more perfect - unless by some magic you imagine that the only inputs left are optimal ones. But finding the optimal ones is the problem with started with! If we knew that, there would be no need for the rest - it's because there's no definite obvious way to know what is right is that we have democracy, otherwise we'd just have one law: "always do what's right" and that's it, no need for congress, elections, etc.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? I'm not sure you've thought this through. Consider: 1. Representatives voting in complete ignorance would vote 50/50, on average. However, some representatives will actually have the technical knowledge needed to vote properly, so the majority would probably fall in NN's favour. What do you think the vote ratio would look like if they only received biased information from lobbyists with deep pockets? Suddenly voting in ignorance doesn't sound too bad (and this applies to any issue, not just NN). 2. To further the above point, the wisdom of the crowd is a robust phenomenon whereby a group of independent voters can make better aggregate decisions than any single voter, probably for exactly the reasons I explained above. However, this breaks down if the votes are no longer independent. Lobbying destroys this property. If you look up the "wisdom of the crowds", lobbying encourages homogeneity, centralization, imitation, and emotionality.
    - dnadler 8y ago
      > Representatives voting in complete ignorance would vote 50/50, on average I suspect that there would be a strong status quo bias in ignorant votes, so 50/50 is not a realistic assumption in my opinion. Not that this is even a realistic starting point to begin with because interested parties will alway try to disseminate information to law makers (directly, or indirectly).
      - naasking 8y ago
        > I suspect that there would be a strong status quo bias in ignorant votes Not sure about that. If the status quo were satisfactory, it's less likely there would be a vote to change it. That's a counterbalancing impetus to vote away from the status quo. Hard to quantify which way that would fall. Furthermore, outlawing lobbying would encourage the contrary behaviour for candidates to keep their seats: the representatives visiting their constituents to hear their views. Lobbyists can voice their opinion at these town hall meetings, and I think it's clear that this makes it much harder to game the votes away from constituent interests. The significant expansion of meetings to cover to stack the deck makes lobbying considerably more expensive, and probably not worth it unless it's a seriously important issue that would make or break a market.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gtycomb 8y ago
> then went on define net neutrality as the exact opposite This guy and my former Arizona senator must have gone to the same school. During the campaign, we listened to a PBS feature of this future senator and family from their kitchen, a happy working middle class setting, discussing their views. He was strongly against bailouts he said, and within 4 months after getting elected he voted just the opposite. The public seldom hears these in our media.
dorkusmcgavin 8y ago
> then went on define net neutrality as the exact opposite of the commonly accepted meaning. [Regarding Obama Administration] "Then there was the 'fairness doctrine,' designed to limit opposing voices in radio and on television; 'net neutrality,' which promised to regulate the Internet so as to prevent, ultimately, individuals from frequenting Web sites that might disagree with an administration;" - Larry Schweikart (What Would the Founders Say?) [Endorsed by Glenn Beck and read by Tea Party supporters all over.] I think if you just give them the correct definition of Net Neutrality and explain how it works and why they would be for it. But people frequently leave out the "how it works and why" part of an argument so it just defaults to polarized scream matches. If people took the time to explain things to people, IE: "speak truth to stupid", we would be much better off. To be fair, Larry Schweikart is incredibly intelligent and well read on history. "Mr 'Buckley' - well-spoken, intelligent, curious - had heard virtually nothing of modern science. He had a natural appetite for the wonders of the Universe. He wanted to know about science. It’s just that all the science had gotten filtered out before it reached him. Our cultural motifs, our educational system, our communications media had failed this man. What society permitted to trickle through was mainly pretence and confusion. It had never taught him how to distinguish real science from the cheap imitation. He knew nothing about how science works." - Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)

My response from a Texas senator was that he "supports net neutrality" and then went on define net neutrality as the exact opposite of the commonly accepted meaning.

swebs 8y ago

And that's probably what he honestly believes because that's how some lobbyist explained it to him. I think a huge chunk of America's problems would be solved just by getting rid of lobbyists.

cies 8y ago
> America's problems Every democracies problems. The problem with lobbies is that they allow "deeper pockets" to have "more influence", which is exactly what democracies should prevent. Thus big lobbies (especially the corporate funded ones, which ar by far teh larger part) are undermining the democratic process. We see the results of this all over the world.
smsm42 8y ago
You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? Or explain them, but people who do it would be called not "lobbyists" but "educators" and would be only allowed to say what agrees with some opinions, but not the others? Or allowing anybody explaining things to congressmen and just not calling it "lobbying" because it's a dirty word?
- swebs 8y ago
  >You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? So the options are either 1. Get a biased source of information (along with donations $$$) from Comcast 2. Just throw your hands up in the air and declare that the problem is unknowable. Nope, Wikipedia doesn't exist. Neither does the library, your staff, or the actual bill itself. Comcast's lobbyist only. A person elected into one of the highest positions in the US is too incompetent to do their own research.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dhimes 8y ago
    3. Require all meetings with lobbyists to be public- with video and transcript documentation. Mandatory jail time for those who don't comply.
    - mac01021 8y ago
      What constitutes a lobbyist? Must a congressman record every discussion he has with every person he meets, just in case the topic of conversation turns to public policy?
      - tdb7893 8y ago
        We could broadcast the video on Bravo and call it "Real Senators of the US"! It would be like a better CSPAN. Edit: also we could call in votes like it's American Idol. I think we should try it, it couldn't be worse than what we have now
      - dhimes 8y ago
        Here's a start: https://www.tripsavvy.com/faqs-about-lobbying-1039165 https://www.tripsavvy.com/faqs-about-lobbying-1039165 Example: https://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/register.html https://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/register.html There will certainly be attempts to end-run the disclosure, but in principle it's a regulated industry.
    - smsm42 8y ago
      There was something like this in California, public meetings law, called Brown Act. As I heard, it's not exactly working as intended http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2017/03/23/californias-open-meetings-law-became-gag-rule/ideas/connecting-california/ http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2017/03/23/californias-ope...
  - smsm42 8y ago
    All human sources of information are biased. That's why we have democracy - to duke it out in a market of ideas and find some common denominator that somehow summarizes people's opinions. True, this system is not perfect. But removing inputs would not make it more perfect - unless by some magic you imagine that the only inputs left are optimal ones. But finding the optimal ones is the problem with started with! If we knew that, there would be no need for the rest - it's because there's no definite obvious way to know what is right is that we have democracy, otherwise we'd just have one law: "always do what's right" and that's it, no need for congress, elections, etc.
- naasking 8y ago
  > You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? I'm not sure you've thought this through. Consider: 1. Representatives voting in complete ignorance would vote 50/50, on average. However, some representatives will actually have the technical knowledge needed to vote properly, so the majority would probably fall in NN's favour. What do you think the vote ratio would look like if they only received biased information from lobbyists with deep pockets? Suddenly voting in ignorance doesn't sound too bad (and this applies to any issue, not just NN). 2. To further the above point, the wisdom of the crowd is a robust phenomenon whereby a group of independent voters can make better aggregate decisions than any single voter, probably for exactly the reasons I explained above. However, this breaks down if the votes are no longer independent. Lobbying destroys this property. If you look up the "wisdom of the crowds", lobbying encourages homogeneity, centralization, imitation, and emotionality.
  - dnadler 8y ago
    > Representatives voting in complete ignorance would vote 50/50, on average I suspect that there would be a strong status quo bias in ignorant votes, so 50/50 is not a realistic assumption in my opinion. Not that this is even a realistic starting point to begin with because interested parties will alway try to disseminate information to law makers (directly, or indirectly).
    - naasking 8y ago
      > I suspect that there would be a strong status quo bias in ignorant votes Not sure about that. If the status quo were satisfactory, it's less likely there would be a vote to change it. That's a counterbalancing impetus to vote away from the status quo. Hard to quantify which way that would fall. Furthermore, outlawing lobbying would encourage the contrary behaviour for candidates to keep their seats: the representatives visiting their constituents to hear their views. Lobbyists can voice their opinion at these town hall meetings, and I think it's clear that this makes it much harder to game the votes away from constituent interests. The significant expansion of meetings to cover to stack the deck makes lobbying considerably more expensive, and probably not worth it unless it's a seriously important issue that would make or break a market.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gtycomb 8y ago

> then went on define net neutrality as the exact opposite This guy and my former Arizona senator must have gone to the same school. During the campaign, we listened to a PBS feature of this future senator and family from their kitchen, a happy working middle class setting, discussing their views. He was strongly against bailouts he said, and within 4 months after getting elected he voted just the opposite. The public seldom hears these in our media.

dorkusmcgavin 8y ago

> then went on define net neutrality as the exact opposite of the commonly accepted meaning. [Regarding Obama Administration] "Then there was the 'fairness doctrine,' designed to limit opposing voices in radio and on television; 'net neutrality,' which promised to regulate the Internet so as to prevent, ultimately, individuals from frequenting Web sites that might disagree with an administration;" - Larry Schweikart (What Would the Founders Say?) [Endorsed by Glenn Beck and read by Tea Party supporters all over.] I think if you just give them the correct definition of Net Neutrality and explain how it works and why they would be for it. But people frequently leave out the "how it works and why" part of an argument so it just defaults to polarized scream matches. If people took the time to explain things to people, IE: "speak truth to stupid", we would be much better off. To be fair, Larry Schweikart is incredibly intelligent and well read on history. "Mr 'Buckley' - well-spoken, intelligent, curious - had heard virtually nothing of modern science. He had a natural appetite for the wonders of the Universe. He wanted to know about science. It’s just that all the science had gotten filtered out before it reached him. Our cultural motifs, our educational system, our communications media had failed this man. What society permitted to trickle through was mainly pretence and confusion. It had never taught him how to distinguish real science from the cheap imitation. He knew nothing about how science works." - Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)