"If the Court follows the 10th Circuit, then the public has a chance to determine whether it wants to accept that result." The public already has that chance. This isn't helping. It's based on a flawed theory of change that court decisions provoke successful political backlashes that overturn the decisions. Being able to express yourself in a patrician cadence and couch your arguments in terms Courts understand does not make you a net-sum-positive political actor at the highest level of democratic power. This isn't the right time to bring this.
The only way to please HN is to regulate every company in every industry the exact same way at the exact same time, and to ensure the press reports it all happening at the same time, in the same article, with a neutral headline, and without demonizing anyone. "Regulators Regulate Every Company Equally, Irrespective of Varying Justifications. Companies All Reportedly Good Faith Actors, Say Companies," reports Ars Technica.
You know, you really straw manned the comment above you. They didn’t say any of that, they just said it would be nice if they looked into Google too. It was a very polite, non-critical comment.
Speaking for myself, I think it’s my hope that the people on here who are being ignorant are usually at least open to being rationally explained at why they are wrong.
It’s not guaranteed but in other forums it’s less of a guarantee.
And even if the person doesn’t respond well, sometimes the more reasonable comments will get upvoted, even if they’re unpopular positions, so it’s worth making them.
It’s not true on every topic, some things like sexual violence HN seems to come from an emotional place, which brings out Dang’s “no flame ward!” hammer...
But in general this is a forum where knowing what’s actually true and explaining it well can sometimes be rewarded.
That said, there is also a ton of knee-jerk “that’s not technically true” or “I don’t immediately see the feasibility” stuff. I suspect that is just a personality thing that correlates with engineer types.
You get that the government is controlled by politics right? The FCC Chair is quite obviously a political appointment based on politics. ISPs get to dig in the public right of way. They have access to what is a natural monopoly of plugging into peoples' homes. Unprofitable infrastructure? How about the fact that these companies take all their cap-ex and throw it into CONTENT then beg the federal government to allow them to throttle their customers so they can charge for the content. Force indeed.
The system has a turnkey solution to this sort of thing. Say I'm sorry. Then reassure us in conclusory fashion you didn't do anything really bad (ignore his prior conviction). Formulaic apology that uses phrases like "allowed him to invest" and "funds were received with my permission" to distance from the problem.
"Equivalent" future-facing commitment to fund-raise. Return exactly the amount of money that led to your personal benefit, don't mention any gains on the money. Use the word "again" to reiterate empty message. Ok, everyone, ready to move on?
He should step down from the boards of the Media Lab and The New York Times. Far more information is provided in Ethan's resignation letter than in Ito's "apology":
I don't know about we, but he could do a lot more than a carefully worded apology. He knowingly took money from a man convicted [1] of child prostitution. The least he could do is resign.
Yes, but it seems intellectually dishonest to go after big tech (where, often, the "product" is free) yet avoid going after -- say -- big telco or big cable or big pharma -- where you come out of a retail store feeling disgusting because you got ripped off so badly.
By ripped off, I dont mean, I over-spent, but rather I was forced into buying something due to having only a single choice, while not even knowing the ultimate price I will pay.
Where I live in the US -- there is ONE and only ONE broadband provider. If you ask for the price, they give you the three month promotion price. If you press them really hard, you get the ultimate non-promotional price. Then you get the bill and there is a "wire fee", "regulatory recovery fee", "line charge" and all manner of all surprise charges that you didn't agree to except in some blank-check-fine-print fashion.
Say what you might about privacy etc, but my immediate, acute pains are with real monopolies like my broadband provider -- not with which free photo sharing app I need to use
>Yes, but it seems intellectually dishonest to go after big tech (where, often, the "product" is free) yet avoid going after -- say -- big telco or big cable or big pharma -- where you come out of a retail store feeling disgusting because you got ripped off so badly.
You must be living under a very heavy rock if you don't think she's going after pharma and telco companies. She spent half of the last debate ripping on pharma companies.
I read the entire wired article, the article is about expanding broadband access to areas which dont have broadband. A worthy exercise...but that is different from:
1. Applying her [awesome] CFPB approach to telco where you cant just spring mystery charges post-hoc and hang customers on a contract they didn't agree to.
2. Allowing multiple broadband providers to compete
She also proposes to strike down state laws that prohibit municipal broadband options, and I'm shocked at this point that you're standing by your original comment that she's only regulating Big Tech. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmjja/elizabeth-warren-p...
2. A number of items that would help with that are included in the article. Changes to utility pole ownership, encouraging municipal broadband alternatives, etc.
