7 ms·

I don't think it's true to say that the comments to the FCC have no impact. It's a part of their process for a reason, and the fact that somoene felt the need t

I don't think it's true to say that the comments to the FCC have no impact. It's a part of their process for a reason, and the fact that somoene felt the need to stuff the ballot points to genuine concern. I think it's fairly reasonable to say it would have put Pai in a difficult position politically to institute a rule after 100% of people petitioned against it. Which is why the clearly fraudulent activity happened. I think the reason the case is being fought is the same reason, it's not about whether people actually like net neutrality, they clearly don't. The point is to rules lawyer through the situation - oh well the comments were a wash, oh well there seems to have been fraud, let's ignore the comments entirely, oh well we can actually really easily tell which comments were fraudulent, but the rules have been in place for years now so it's a moot point.

takeda 7y ago
> it's not about whether people actually like net neutrality, they clearly don't. I disagree with you here, those who are informed are are for net neutrality, not against it. No one wants ISP (or in fact anyone) deciding what sites they can visit or not.
- fphhotchips 7y ago
  I think 'they' in this statement refers to the members of the FCC that wanted the change.
- Traster 7y ago
  Sorry, by they, I meant the FCC.
  - takeda 7y ago
    Ah I see, but also not entirely true either, they were divided internally as well. There are 5 commissioners, 2 of them were actually pro NN, the other 2 + chairman Pai were against it, so they were overruled.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  > I disagree with you here, those who are informed are are for net neutrality, not against it. I know a software engineer who is very much against net neutrality. He also happens to be very much pro free market (in the “no regulation at all” approach).
  - pstuart 7y ago
    Libertarianism is a hell of a drug.
  - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
    Right when I was first learning about libertarianism and it was really appealing to me, I was also listening to a whole bunch of Martin Luther King Jr speeches. MLK was extremely smart and well read - a genuine philosopher of great value. As much as he valued community based power, and as much as the democrats stifled and blocked his movement at almost every step of the way, he still believed there was a time for government action. When a great mass of people are starving or struggling to merely get by, the government can and in his opinion should help. And it's hard to argue against that. The state is a cause of a great many problems - mass incarceration, the obstruction of black freedom movements, drone killings, and more which must be stopped - but at the same time, the state is an institution we have now. We must build our own resilient institutions to replace the state, but I think it ignores the suffering of millions to say the state should never be used to help the less privileged. I get really frustrated with libertarian types that would dismantle useful state programs before we've got something to replace them. They seem uninterested in the suffering that might cause, and I think they would do well to focus more advocacy on building the replacements before dismantling government systems. Interestingly I've learned that there is a big difference between "left libertarians" and "right libertarians". I think the left libertarians and the socialist anarchists could actually be allies if they could get past all their language differences and knee jerk reactions. My roommate is a knowledgeable left libertarian and it's amazing how similar our end goals are but how different our language and conceptual frameworks for getting there can sometimes be.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
- root_axis 7y ago
  > No one wants ISP (or in fact anyone) deciding what sites they can visit or not. A lot of people do want that because they view prohibiting it as a government take over of the internet. I personally think that is absurd, but it's a very popular opinion.
  - takeda 7y ago
    They are misinformed, the ISPs spent a lot of effort trying to confuse people. They confuse people implying that government tries to start controlling Internet now and it didn't do that before, when the reverse is true. Is like trying to convince people that first amendment should be abolished, because it is enforced by the government and they should not control what we can say or not. It is flipping the whole thing upside down, and many confused people are supporting it, when they really want the opposite.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      I don't agree that they are confused, at least not most of them. Rather, those views comport with their existing perspectives on government regulation of the private sector. Even in this very forum it is not uncommon to see people seriously argue that regulations are fundamentally bad for consumers, including net neutrality. I disagree with this perspective, but I don't think it's accurate to say they are confused about their position. The most common argument I hear against net neutrality is that it's unnecessary government overreach and that ISPs would never try to dictate network traffic in a draconian fashion because it would be bad for business. I won't list all the problems with this reasoning since I'd be preaching to the choir, but this is a belief that a lot of people have.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > A lot of people do want that because they view prohibiting it as a government take over of the internet. I personally think that is absurd, but it's a very popular opinion. Can you point to some places where this opinion is expressed? I've never encountered it.
    - 7y ago

takeda 7y ago

> it's not about whether people actually like net neutrality, they clearly don't. I disagree with you here, those who are informed are are for net neutrality, not against it. No one wants ISP (or in fact anyone) deciding what sites they can visit or not.

fphhotchips 7y ago
I think 'they' in this statement refers to the members of the FCC that wanted the change.
Traster 7y ago
Sorry, by they, I meant the FCC.
- takeda 7y ago
  Ah I see, but also not entirely true either, they were divided internally as well. There are 5 commissioners, 2 of them were actually pro NN, the other 2 + chairman Pai were against it, so they were overruled.
colejohnson66 7y ago
> I disagree with you here, those who are informed are are for net neutrality, not against it. I know a software engineer who is very much against net neutrality. He also happens to be very much pro free market (in the “no regulation at all” approach).
- pstuart 7y ago
  Libertarianism is a hell of a drug.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  Right when I was first learning about libertarianism and it was really appealing to me, I was also listening to a whole bunch of Martin Luther King Jr speeches. MLK was extremely smart and well read - a genuine philosopher of great value. As much as he valued community based power, and as much as the democrats stifled and blocked his movement at almost every step of the way, he still believed there was a time for government action. When a great mass of people are starving or struggling to merely get by, the government can and in his opinion should help. And it's hard to argue against that. The state is a cause of a great many problems - mass incarceration, the obstruction of black freedom movements, drone killings, and more which must be stopped - but at the same time, the state is an institution we have now. We must build our own resilient institutions to replace the state, but I think it ignores the suffering of millions to say the state should never be used to help the less privileged. I get really frustrated with libertarian types that would dismantle useful state programs before we've got something to replace them. They seem uninterested in the suffering that might cause, and I think they would do well to focus more advocacy on building the replacements before dismantling government systems. Interestingly I've learned that there is a big difference between "left libertarians" and "right libertarians". I think the left libertarians and the socialist anarchists could actually be allies if they could get past all their language differences and knee jerk reactions. My roommate is a knowledgeable left libertarian and it's amazing how similar our end goals are but how different our language and conceptual frameworks for getting there can sometimes be.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
root_axis 7y ago
> No one wants ISP (or in fact anyone) deciding what sites they can visit or not. A lot of people do want that because they view prohibiting it as a government take over of the internet. I personally think that is absurd, but it's a very popular opinion.
- takeda 7y ago
  They are misinformed, the ISPs spent a lot of effort trying to confuse people. They confuse people implying that government tries to start controlling Internet now and it didn't do that before, when the reverse is true. Is like trying to convince people that first amendment should be abolished, because it is enforced by the government and they should not control what we can say or not. It is flipping the whole thing upside down, and many confused people are supporting it, when they really want the opposite.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    I don't agree that they are confused, at least not most of them. Rather, those views comport with their existing perspectives on government regulation of the private sector. Even in this very forum it is not uncommon to see people seriously argue that regulations are fundamentally bad for consumers, including net neutrality. I disagree with this perspective, but I don't think it's accurate to say they are confused about their position. The most common argument I hear against net neutrality is that it's unnecessary government overreach and that ISPs would never try to dictate network traffic in a draconian fashion because it would be bad for business. I won't list all the problems with this reasoning since I'd be preaching to the choir, but this is a belief that a lot of people have.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > A lot of people do want that because they view prohibiting it as a government take over of the internet. I personally think that is absurd, but it's a very popular opinion. Can you point to some places where this opinion is expressed? I've never encountered it.
  - 7y ago