4 ms·

This is old news, well known and literally the whole "comments" was a sham anyway. The voting was controlled by 5 people and split on party lines 3-2 [0]. NN w

This is old news, well known and literally the whole "comments" was a sham anyway. The voting was controlled by 5 people and split on party lines 3-2 [0]. NN was never actually up for debate. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Rollback_of_Obama-era_rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S... - last paragraph

env123 7y ago
Wasn't aware of it though. Why can't news be slow?
- doktrin 7y ago
  Agreed. Nothing wrong with writing about "old" news. Just because I / you / anyone might already know something doesn't mean everybody does, and even if we already know something doesn't mean revisiting it is pointless.
- IshKebab 7y ago
  Because then it isn't news anymore. It is history, and it's probably better found on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United...
  - Lio 7y ago
    By that definition everything is history and nothing is news because everything is read sometime after it was first reported. I’m sure you didn’t mean it as such but that sounds like the kind of argument often used to shutdown discussion of egregious behaviour.
bhouston 7y ago
Someone should still go to jail for mass lying to the government. This would deter it in the future. Otherwise we are saying this is just the new standard operating procedure, astroturfing using dead people's identities is totally legal.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Bartweiss 7y ago
Sure, but the focus of the report is that we now have an idea of who faked the comments. Since the FCC shrugged and declined to investigate, that's taken a long time to arrive. Granted, "small media firms deniably hired by an industry lobby group" is basically what everyone expected, but it's still interesting to see how it panned out.
nabdab 7y ago
The last line of defense from the incumbent. “Anyways this is old news, everyone already knows I committed an impeachable offense, so why are we even talking about it!?”

env123 7y ago

Wasn't aware of it though. Why can't news be slow?

doktrin 7y ago
Agreed. Nothing wrong with writing about "old" news. Just because I / you / anyone might already know something doesn't mean everybody does, and even if we already know something doesn't mean revisiting it is pointless.
IshKebab 7y ago
Because then it isn't news anymore. It is history, and it's probably better found on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United...
- Lio 7y ago
  By that definition everything is history and nothing is news because everything is read sometime after it was first reported. I’m sure you didn’t mean it as such but that sounds like the kind of argument often used to shutdown discussion of egregious behaviour.

bhouston 7y ago

Someone should still go to jail for mass lying to the government. This would deter it in the future. Otherwise we are saying this is just the new standard operating procedure, astroturfing using dead people's identities is totally legal.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Bartweiss 7y ago

Sure, but the focus of the report is that we now have an idea of who faked the comments. Since the FCC shrugged and declined to investigate, that's taken a long time to arrive. Granted, "small media firms deniably hired by an industry lobby group" is basically what everyone expected, but it's still interesting to see how it panned out.

nabdab 7y ago

The last line of defense from the incumbent. “Anyways this is old news, everyone already knows I committed an impeachable offense, so why are we even talking about it!?”