4 ms·

I like how they quoted Brendan Carr - he's one of those people who think anything done in the public interest, to protect people's rights, increase transparency

I like how they quoted Brendan Carr - he's one of those people who think anything done in the public interest, to protect people's rights, increase transparency or to hold power brokers accountable is, without exaggeration, evil tyrannical overreach. These kinds of people talk about personal responsibility because they don't believe in social or civic responsibility. I mean don't get me wrong, he's ok with the government paying for things to gift them away to corporations, or bailing them out or banning things like municipal broadband and consumer disclosure or legislation that enables dark money to move around - that's apparently good government doing good things. It's like he reads Philip K Dick for inspiration of how to structure a society.

malfist 2y ago
He's not nearly that principled. Private capital acting in a way he doesn't agree with politically is wrong according to him. See his complaints about Big tech "censorship" of misinformation and Harris's appearance on SNL
- kristopolous 2y ago
  His idea of censorship is when social media takes steps in the public interest and their civic responsibility of providing a social good seriously. Meta is trying to avoid another Myanmar catastrophe and he wants to use the power of the state to ensure no responsible actions for the public good will be taken. It's ideologically consistent. Anything acting for the betterment of society is somehow communism
omolobo 2y ago
[dead]
sour-taste 2y ago
Reading this guys twitter feed makes my blood boil. Look at what he posted about this: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-408580A1.txt https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-408580A1.txt His argument is just 'this is a new way of applying these regulations, and that bad!'. Nothing about the cost impact that this will have for consumers, nothing about merits of the case, just political BS. He's our incoming FCC head who previously was a lawyer for AT&T, Verizon, and US Telecom [1]. This is going to be a very bad 4 years to be an internet user except for probably Twitter users who will get preferential treatment. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20231022070004/https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-brendan-carr-20170628-story.html https://web.archive.org/web/20231022070004/https://www.latim...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- whoitwas 2y ago
  Like Ajit? GOP always staffs agencies like regulatory capture is the end game.
  - kristopolous 2y ago
    There's really two ways to read that behavior: 1. bad faith: They're a corrupt band of thieves trying to plunder our pocketbooks 2. good faith: They're ideologically committed to this strategy and believe it is beneficial I think I can argue #2 from a GOP perspective but I've always found their arguments to be thoroughly unconvincing so I don't know if I truly understand it. It's much easier to handwave people away as corrupt and incompetent but that's effectively a stand-in for any power broking behavior you don't understand.
    - whoitwas 2y ago
      I never claimed incompetence. They're very effective.

malfist 2y ago

He's not nearly that principled. Private capital acting in a way he doesn't agree with politically is wrong according to him. See his complaints about Big tech "censorship" of misinformation and Harris's appearance on SNL

kristopolous 2y ago
His idea of censorship is when social media takes steps in the public interest and their civic responsibility of providing a social good seriously. Meta is trying to avoid another Myanmar catastrophe and he wants to use the power of the state to ensure no responsible actions for the public good will be taken. It's ideologically consistent. Anything acting for the betterment of society is somehow communism

omolobo 2y ago

[dead]

sour-taste 2y ago

Reading this guys twitter feed makes my blood boil. Look at what he posted about this: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-408580A1.txt https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-408580A1.txt His argument is just 'this is a new way of applying these regulations, and that bad!'. Nothing about the cost impact that this will have for consumers, nothing about merits of the case, just political BS. He's our incoming FCC head who previously was a lawyer for AT&T, Verizon, and US Telecom [1]. This is going to be a very bad 4 years to be an internet user except for probably Twitter users who will get preferential treatment. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20231022070004/https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-brendan-carr-20170628-story.html https://web.archive.org/web/20231022070004/https://www.latim...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
whoitwas 2y ago
Like Ajit? GOP always staffs agencies like regulatory capture is the end game.
- kristopolous 2y ago
  There's really two ways to read that behavior: 1. bad faith: They're a corrupt band of thieves trying to plunder our pocketbooks 2. good faith: They're ideologically committed to this strategy and believe it is beneficial I think I can argue #2 from a GOP perspective but I've always found their arguments to be thoroughly unconvincing so I don't know if I truly understand it. It's much easier to handwave people away as corrupt and incompetent but that's effectively a stand-in for any power broking behavior you don't understand.
  - whoitwas 2y ago
    I never claimed incompetence. They're very effective.