5 ms·

What bugs me the most is that the government either doesn't really want to know who's interfering with the democratic process or they know and they're not telli

What bugs me the most is that the government either doesn't really want to know who's interfering with the democratic process or they know and they're not telling us. The former implies extreme ignorance, the later implies agency capture to the point the FCC is no longer a public institution.

lma22 7y ago
Does it not benefit the current administration?
- calibas 7y ago
  Big businesses learned long ago that if you back both sides you always win.
  - bmm6o 7y ago
    This particular issue is pretty partisan.
    - calibas 7y ago
      A former Verizon lawyer received unanimous Senate support for an FCC position back when Obama was president. That's what set this all up, I blame both parties for exactly what they did. You can't put industry insiders into top regulatory positions of the very industries they work for, you have to be a drooling moron to not see why that's a bad idea, much less unethical. The fact that both parties are okay with it should speak volumes.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
CerealFounder 7y ago
I mean, if you dig with any seriousness, it's pretty likely that THEY actually manufactured it.
glitcher 7y ago
I seem to recall at the time some pretty clear signaling from Pai and the FCC that their decisions were really not going to be influenced by the comments no matter what they contained.
- willis936 7y ago
  His smug demeanor while talking about reading the support for no Net Neutrality seemed like a victory lap for getting away with short circuiting the system. He should be put on trial and his emails and texts should be admissible evidence. As a reminder: the overwhelming public opinion and media coverage was on outrage over the fraudulent comments prior to Pai announcing that the public had shown support for ending Net Neutrality. That alone should be grounds for having him tried. At what point can you no longer legally get away with malicious lying for profit? I think he crossed that line, which is impressive.

lma22 7y ago

Does it not benefit the current administration?

calibas 7y ago
Big businesses learned long ago that if you back both sides you always win.
- bmm6o 7y ago
  This particular issue is pretty partisan.
  - calibas 7y ago
    A former Verizon lawyer received unanimous Senate support for an FCC position back when Obama was president. That's what set this all up, I blame both parties for exactly what they did. You can't put industry insiders into top regulatory positions of the very industries they work for, you have to be a drooling moron to not see why that's a bad idea, much less unethical. The fact that both parties are okay with it should speak volumes.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

CerealFounder 7y ago

I mean, if you dig with any seriousness, it's pretty likely that THEY actually manufactured it.

glitcher 7y ago

I seem to recall at the time some pretty clear signaling from Pai and the FCC that their decisions were really not going to be influenced by the comments no matter what they contained.

willis936 7y ago
His smug demeanor while talking about reading the support for no Net Neutrality seemed like a victory lap for getting away with short circuiting the system. He should be put on trial and his emails and texts should be admissible evidence. As a reminder: the overwhelming public opinion and media coverage was on outrage over the fraudulent comments prior to Pai announcing that the public had shown support for ending Net Neutrality. That alone should be grounds for having him tried. At what point can you no longer legally get away with malicious lying for profit? I think he crossed that line, which is impressive.