3 ms·

Most people don't know what the FCC's charter is, what its position is in relation to other governmental entities and lets not get started on the Internet itsel

by mpk 16y ago

Most people don't know what the FCC's charter is, what its position is in relation to other governmental entities and lets not get started on the Internet itself. Most people just think of it as this magic black box (and why would they not?). Asking random people to decide on what they do or do not want the FCC to do regarding the Internet will inevitably result in answers based on flawed premises. Take the Campaign to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide as an example here. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dihydrogen_mo...

lucasjung 16y ago
"Asking random people to decide on what they do or do not want the FCC to do regarding the Internet will inevitably result in answers based on flawed premises." Let's rephrase that a little and see what we get: Asking [constituents] to decide on what they do or do not want [any particular government agency] to do regarding [any particular issue] will result in [a pretty good indicator of how congress is likely act]. If congress is hearing that "random people" (aka "constituents") are against "more" or "TV-like" regulation of the internet, then congress is going to take steps to prevent the FCC from doing whatever it is that congress thinks people don't want. If you don't like this, rather than pointing out "uninformed" typical voters are you'd be much better served by trying to "inform" them. Caution: a lot of times, "typical" people hear what experts have to say and respond with something to the effect of, "I understand and accept the facts as you have explained them, but I do not share your opinion about what should be done in light of those facts because I am balancing your concerns against a whole list of other concerns which you prioritize very differently." Frustrated experts routinely misinterpret this as "we don't need your stinkin 'facts,' nerd-boy!" because they consider their chosen issue to be so important that they are incapable of understanding how someone could understand the facts and still come to a different conclusion. This is usually followed by general complaints about "anti-intellectualism." Aside: when I was in high school, a group of friends and I distributed anti-H20 literature with great success: other students started making their own photocopies and redistributing them, eventually to teachers and faculty. A few days after we started the process, an airhead vice-principal (our school had multiple vice-principals) was in the process of organizing a student group when the AP Chemistry teacher took her aside and tried to politely explain to her that she had been had. At first she wouldn't hear it, and turned his attempt at a quiet aside into a noisy and public scene, much to her eventual embarrassment. I'm pretty sure he knew we were responsible, but didn't bust us because he was so annoyed by that vice-principal.
- zeemonkee 16y ago
  Reminds me of the British satire Brass Eye, which conned a number of celebrities about a new drug called "Cake": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0GxUxKZdHk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0GxUxKZdHk

by mpk 16y ago

lucasjung 16y ago

"Asking random people to decide on what they do or do not want the FCC to do regarding the Internet will inevitably result in answers based on flawed premises." Let's rephrase that a little and see what we get: Asking [constituents] to decide on what they do or do not want [any particular government agency] to do regarding [any particular issue] will result in [a pretty good indicator of how congress is likely act]. If congress is hearing that "random people" (aka "constituents") are against "more" or "TV-like" regulation of the internet, then congress is going to take steps to prevent the FCC from doing whatever it is that congress thinks people don't want. If you don't like this, rather than pointing out "uninformed" typical voters are you'd be much better served by trying to "inform" them. Caution: a lot of times, "typical" people hear what experts have to say and respond with something to the effect of, "I understand and accept the facts as you have explained them, but I do not share your opinion about what should be done in light of those facts because I am balancing your concerns against a whole list of other concerns which you prioritize very differently." Frustrated experts routinely misinterpret this as "we don't need your stinkin 'facts,' nerd-boy!" because they consider their chosen issue to be so important that they are incapable of understanding how someone could understand the facts and still come to a different conclusion. This is usually followed by general complaints about "anti-intellectualism." Aside: when I was in high school, a group of friends and I distributed anti-H20 literature with great success: other students started making their own photocopies and redistributing them, eventually to teachers and faculty. A few days after we started the process, an airhead vice-principal (our school had multiple vice-principals) was in the process of organizing a student group when the AP Chemistry teacher took her aside and tried to politely explain to her that she had been had. At first she wouldn't hear it, and turned his attempt at a quiet aside into a noisy and public scene, much to her eventual embarrassment. I'm pretty sure he knew we were responsible, but didn't bust us because he was so annoyed by that vice-principal.

zeemonkee 16y ago
Reminds me of the British satire Brass Eye, which conned a number of celebrities about a new drug called "Cake": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0GxUxKZdHk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0GxUxKZdHk