Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Jul 2017 13:37 UTC
Internet & Networking

FCC chairman Ajit Pai is fond of saying that "the internet was not broken in 2015" when he argues for repeal of our nation's net neutrality rules. This is particularly funny to me, because in 2014 I literally wrote an article called "The internet is fucked".

Why was it fucked? Because the free and open internet was in danger of becoming tightly controlled by giant telecom corporations that were already doing things like blocking apps and services from phones and excusing their own services from data caps. Because the lack of competition in the internet access market let these companies act like predatory monopolies. And because our government lacked the will or clarity to just say what everyone already knows: internet access is a utility.

Most of these things are still true, even after the Obama-era FCC under Chairman Tom Wheeler reclassified internet access as a Title II telecommunications service and imposed strict net neutrality rules on wired and wireless internet providers. And most of these things will get even worse when Pai pushes through his plan to rescind Title II and those rules, despite widespread public outcry.

Hey look, another case of corporations actively working to undermine society by bribing politicians with huge amounts of money that individuals would never (or only rarely) have access to. As long as politicians' power is derived not from the people, but from money, shit like this will continue to happen. Trying to stop Pai's obviously horrible and destructive anti-consumer plans is a noble goal, but these plans are only a symptom, not a cause. We're playing whack-a-mole, while they are playing Jenga.

These corporate criminals and their political lapdogs will keep throwing money at the wall until it breaks - and they have more money than we have bricks and mortar.

Thread beginning with comment 646662
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr
by bryanv on Wed 12th Jul 2017 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kurkosdr"
bryanv
Member since:
2005-08-26

I don't vote because I'm an anarchist, and because they never offer any choice that I'd ever vote for anyhow.


Then the proper thing to do, is to cast an empty ballot.
SHOW UP. Abstaining on a vote actually is _counted_. They see those numbers. Represent your refusal to vote for shitty options by showing up, and refusing to vote for shitty options.

Not showing up is interpreted completely differently than showing up and refusing to pick a bad option.

You have been deceived into thinking that 'not voting' is somehow sticking it to the parties. No, sir.. They _count_ on people like you not showing up.

If it got to the point where voters who abstain were > the margin of victory, you would start to see a different type of candidate next cycle.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by kurkosdr
by Dr.Cyber on Wed 12th Jul 2017 22:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr"
Dr.Cyber Member since:
2017-06-17



You have been deceived into thinking that 'not voting' is somehow sticking it to the parties. No, sir.. They _count_ on people like you not showing up.

Not voting means you do not want to be part of it and should be left alone, as is your human rights. No one has the right to force people to either vote or submit. Voting with an empty ballot signals to them that you are a moron who actually thinks they care about your opinion.

If it got to the point where voters who abstain were > the margin of victory, you would start to see a different type of candidate next cycle.

You would not. You would just see a puppet controlled by a banker like you always see winning.

Voting is just there to give the illusion of choice in order to keep people docile. It's better for the elite that the people turn in empty ballots then that the people overtrhow the system and take their freedom back.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kurkosdr
by kwan_e on Thu 13th Jul 2017 00:10 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kurkosdr"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Not voting means you do not want to be part of it and should be left alone, as is your human rights.


You want to be left alone, yet allowed to be participate in that society. You can't have both.

No one has the right to force people to either vote or submit.


I believe they do, but then I do like Australia's mandatory voting at state and federal elections. Free societies have few obligations, but there are some obligations I don't think can be shirked in order to keep the rest of the freedoms.

Voting is just there to give the illusion of choice in order to keep people docile.


People treat voting like it's supposed to be done once, decision is final, the winner takes it all. Voting is there to steer society in a direction. You can't do hard turns in society. There is no way to get the exact choice you want, you can only get a choice to steer society in a direction you want.

It's simply infantile to chuck a hissy fit just because you don't get to choose exactly what you want.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kurkosdr
by dionicio on Thu 13th Jul 2017 14:03 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

"Abstaining on a vote actually is _counted_. " Non voting actually is _counted_, also.

States have census data. Mostly public data.

A bit of confidence placed at an urn on a few self proclaimed messiahs every 4 or 6 years means nothing.

Excluding people from political weight -and visibility- is the most usual way of "faking" democracy. Becoming the new normal at XXI century.

And the reason this renewed effort on fiscalizing the WWW, the most civilian side of the Internet, is so insensible.

Don't believe Europe will follow -at least not so openly.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kurkosdr
by JLF65 on Thu 13th Jul 2017 20:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

Then the proper thing to do, is to cast an empty ballot.
SHOW UP. Abstaining on a vote actually is _counted_. They see those numbers. Represent your refusal to vote for shitty options by showing up, and refusing to vote for shitty options.


Electronic voting machines cleared up THAT pesky problem. You CANNOT cast an empty ballot on eVoting machines. There is only one state (Nevada) that includes a "none of the above" entry on their ballots. California tried to get a similar law in place, but it failed. In all other states, you vote for someone on the list, or you don't vote at all.

Reply Parent Score: 2