4 ms·

I fully agree with what you wrote. The question is: current laws are fit for purpose? There are many things that are wrong and supported by laws or things that

I fully agree with what you wrote. The question is: current laws are fit for purpose? There are many things that are wrong and supported by laws or things that can be improved but existing laws forbid that. Is this a question about net neutrality or a question about how can/should be implemented? Same about corporate powers, especially in US where consumer protection seems to be a lot weaker than in EU, even if US has a lot more regulations.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
Good points. I do feel like the current laws are still insufficient, and will ultimately fail due to the corporate control of the internet/governments. More drastic solutions are probably needed. Much better anti-trust laws perhaps to combat the excessive power of big tech, maybe.
- sumtechguy 2y ago
  The issue is the government has been ignoring for nearly 4 decades passing proper laws. They have been deferring to these groups to make fiat laws and calling them regulations. Laws not passed by the congress or senate. The current ruling exactly because the supreme court has basically said 'hey congress do your job and we are not deferring to these made up laws anymore'. It is going to be very messy for a long time. I got ganged up on when this was first done in the FCC. I said it will flip flop depending on who is in power and what their motivations are. Here we are 15 years later and that is exactly what happened. Until Title III is written there will be no real change. We should not let the executive branch have law judge and jury authority. It was not designed that way, it fundamentally breaks the separation of duties. We should also not let the congress and senate and judiciary cede their authority because it is convenient at the moment.
  - michaelmrose 2y ago
    If you look at who we elect and how there is no reason to believe they will every be capable of drafting laws on complex subject matter nor revising them to keep up with the times. Adopting a strategy that wouldn't have worked in 1980 and probably wont work in 2080 unless the country is literally torn down and rebuilt from the ground up doesn't seem like an effective strategy. The supreme court has never just been a cold arbiter of law and they certainly aren't acting thus now. The intention isn't for congress to do their job the purpose is to gut regulation so that the parties who hired the justices by proxy can profit.
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      I don't see why experts in agencies can't take the regulations they write up and send that to Congress to vote on. I find the "Congress can't do this" excuse to be rather weak. If they wanted to defer their authority, I'm sure they'd have no issue rubber stamping things. If regulations can't get through in that system, I guess Congress doesn't agree with that deference.
      - michaelmrose 2y ago
        Any regulation with meaningful effect is going to cost the people who ultimately pay to keep individual congresspeople in office. These folks in fact often spend greater than half their time fundraising not legislating or in many cases are replaced by people who will. Because of the construction of our system your desired legislation can be stymmied by lawmakers representing barely half of states represention 25% of the population so ultimately 13% of us. Worse any meaningful parts are liable to be horse traded away for more vital concerns which are almost always going to be either a crisis or immediate budgetary matters. See the last 40 years. Imagine your cow died decades ago and you were still milking its bones.
afavour 2y ago
Current laws are not fit for purpose but that gets to the heart of what worries me about the US: we can't pass laws any more. I mean, that's an exaggeration, but major decisions like this being decided by the courts is fundamentally wrong. If the majority of the population disagree with this court ruling we ought to very simply head to congress and pass a new law to overturn it. But we won't and everyone knows it. Not to draw too many parallels but it feels similar to the recent overturn of Roe v Wade. It feels like we, as a population, are powerless to do something the majority wants.
- AdrianB1 2y ago
  I think you are looking from the wrong angle. Some court decisions basically said: "based on current Constitution w. amendments, this law fails on constitutional grounds". If change is needed, the people can always amend the Constitution, then laws can be passed. What you are saying is similar to "I am in the pool and I cannot swim because there is no water, so swimming pools are bad" when the answer is "fill it with water".
  - blasphemers 2y ago
    This doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It requires a law granting the FCC the ability to regulate isp's in this way or a law instituting net-neutrality. These "net-neutrality" regulations were always in a legal gray area and a wasted effort by the activists pushing them without understanding anything besides "net-neutrality good".
    - AdrianB1 2y ago
      You know that the Constitution limits the powers of the Federal government versus State powers. If this is what is the problem with the net neutrality, then you need an amendment. Several states have net neutrality laws, that suggests there is a debate on where the regulation can be implemented.
  - afavour 2y ago
    I don’t think this is a different angle at all. > the people can always amend the Constitution My point is that the people cannot do that. Yes, the technical ability exists, but the chances of getting anything passed is very low. So we exist in a limbo where everything gets decided by the courts.

vouaobrasil 2y ago

Good points. I do feel like the current laws are still insufficient, and will ultimately fail due to the corporate control of the internet/governments. More drastic solutions are probably needed. Much better anti-trust laws perhaps to combat the excessive power of big tech, maybe.

sumtechguy 2y ago
The issue is the government has been ignoring for nearly 4 decades passing proper laws. They have been deferring to these groups to make fiat laws and calling them regulations. Laws not passed by the congress or senate. The current ruling exactly because the supreme court has basically said 'hey congress do your job and we are not deferring to these made up laws anymore'. It is going to be very messy for a long time. I got ganged up on when this was first done in the FCC. I said it will flip flop depending on who is in power and what their motivations are. Here we are 15 years later and that is exactly what happened. Until Title III is written there will be no real change. We should not let the executive branch have law judge and jury authority. It was not designed that way, it fundamentally breaks the separation of duties. We should also not let the congress and senate and judiciary cede their authority because it is convenient at the moment.
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  If you look at who we elect and how there is no reason to believe they will every be capable of drafting laws on complex subject matter nor revising them to keep up with the times. Adopting a strategy that wouldn't have worked in 1980 and probably wont work in 2080 unless the country is literally torn down and rebuilt from the ground up doesn't seem like an effective strategy. The supreme court has never just been a cold arbiter of law and they certainly aren't acting thus now. The intention isn't for congress to do their job the purpose is to gut regulation so that the parties who hired the justices by proxy can profit.
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    I don't see why experts in agencies can't take the regulations they write up and send that to Congress to vote on. I find the "Congress can't do this" excuse to be rather weak. If they wanted to defer their authority, I'm sure they'd have no issue rubber stamping things. If regulations can't get through in that system, I guess Congress doesn't agree with that deference.
    - michaelmrose 2y ago
      Any regulation with meaningful effect is going to cost the people who ultimately pay to keep individual congresspeople in office. These folks in fact often spend greater than half their time fundraising not legislating or in many cases are replaced by people who will. Because of the construction of our system your desired legislation can be stymmied by lawmakers representing barely half of states represention 25% of the population so ultimately 13% of us. Worse any meaningful parts are liable to be horse traded away for more vital concerns which are almost always going to be either a crisis or immediate budgetary matters. See the last 40 years. Imagine your cow died decades ago and you were still milking its bones.

afavour 2y ago

Current laws are not fit for purpose but that gets to the heart of what worries me about the US: we can't pass laws any more. I mean, that's an exaggeration, but major decisions like this being decided by the courts is fundamentally wrong. If the majority of the population disagree with this court ruling we ought to very simply head to congress and pass a new law to overturn it. But we won't and everyone knows it. Not to draw too many parallels but it feels similar to the recent overturn of Roe v Wade. It feels like we, as a population, are powerless to do something the majority wants.

AdrianB1 2y ago
I think you are looking from the wrong angle. Some court decisions basically said: "based on current Constitution w. amendments, this law fails on constitutional grounds". If change is needed, the people can always amend the Constitution, then laws can be passed. What you are saying is similar to "I am in the pool and I cannot swim because there is no water, so swimming pools are bad" when the answer is "fill it with water".
- blasphemers 2y ago
  This doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It requires a law granting the FCC the ability to regulate isp's in this way or a law instituting net-neutrality. These "net-neutrality" regulations were always in a legal gray area and a wasted effort by the activists pushing them without understanding anything besides "net-neutrality good".
  - AdrianB1 2y ago
    You know that the Constitution limits the powers of the Federal government versus State powers. If this is what is the problem with the net neutrality, then you need an amendment. Several states have net neutrality laws, that suggests there is a debate on where the regulation can be implemented.
- afavour 2y ago
  I don’t think this is a different angle at all. > the people can always amend the Constitution My point is that the people cannot do that. Yes, the technical ability exists, but the chances of getting anything passed is very low. So we exist in a limbo where everything gets decided by the courts.