5 ms·
That implies 1) the FCC listens to the public and 2) the public understands the technology and 3) the public will vote for what's good for themselves in the net
by hackernewds 5y ago
That implies 1) the FCC listens to the public and 2) the public understands the technology and 3) the public will vote for what's good for themselves in the networks domain. Arguably 2 and 3 are false, and 1 we know to be false depending on the admin (see: net neutrality)
- gotaquestion 5y agoI'm having deja vu, didn't Ajit Pai ignore all that public input from the web forms (blaming it on prank submissions)?
- pessimizer 5y agoI don't think it implies any of those things. If something is regulated by the FCC, it's regulated by a public agency, even if that agency disregards public opinion or public interests. If an anti-5G sentiment caught fire, the FCC could be directed by an administration or Congress to move in a different direction. Anti-5G sentiment shares a lot of DNA and membership with antivax sentiment which seemed like a vocal fringe minority 20 years ago, but may end up being a majority of voters in the next election cycle. It's not completely out of the realm of possibility that you could see major anti-5G political candidates and/or notable incidents of anti-5G violence and terrorism.