7 ms·

The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that m

The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other. > Together, the AGs represent states totaling 165 million people — more than half of the U.S. population.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
javagram 8y ago
The House of Representatives majority, which is held by the GOP and is anti - net neutrality, also represents more than 50% of the US population by this method of counting (which says the state AGs “represent” people who didn’t vote for them). Under the constitutional system of the US something like net neutrality could be passed as a law by the congress, but there hasn’t been a congress that chose to do so.
- EpiphanyMachine 8y ago
  Yes, and it's interesting some of those states have an AG sueing for a policy the House Representatives won't support.
  - rapnie 8y ago
    Also interesting is who the Representatives represent when supporting the abolishment of NN.
- eksemplar 8y ago
  Maybe the way you calculate representation is wrong when 30% of the population gets 50% of the vote.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  It represents a gerrymandered "50%" of the population.
  - ilikehurdles 8y ago
    Not sure why you’re downvoted when you’re right. The senate is meant to be the equalizer, where all states are on equal footing. The House is intended to favor more populous regions. It’s not that the people of the US don’t have as much of a say as they should — it’s that they don’t have _any_ say, anywhere.
- barneygumble742 8y ago
  The Senate actually came up with a resolution to reinstate NN but Paul Ryan refuses to bring it up for a vote in the House. So there is your legislative bottleneck. If it passes the house and the senate, of course trump will sign it and take credit for it. Not a difficult task there.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    > If it passes the house and the senate If. It is likely to pass the House? > of course trump will sign it If Trump supports it, why doesn't he instruct Ajit Pai to implement this policy, or if he doesn't want to do it, why doesn't he replace Ajit Pai with somebody whose views on the subject align with those of Trump? I think it might be because Trump doesn't actually support it.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Trump doesn't actually care about it, and I would be surprised if he understood it. Right now he's against it because Obama did it.
      - smsm42 8y ago
        I think you confuse the caricature of Trump that is pleasing to you to behold because you disagree with him with the actual Trump. While it is pleasing to think people you disagree with are blithering idiots, in case one of them is a President of the US the ignorance of the real state of affairs is not on your side and is not going to serve you well. It is always wrong to underestimate your opponent, it's particularly dangerous if the opponent has a lot of power.
        tzs 8y ago
        You raise some decent points in general, but it is hard to apply them to Trump in the case of net neutrality because he has actually spoken out on it [1]: > Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media [1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716...
- nulbyte 8y ago
  Like legislators, attorneys general represent "the people," not just those who voted for them, and that is the case even if no one voted for them. (As an interesting side-note, there are a few states whose attorneys general is governor-appointed and even one whose attorney general is appointed by the state's Supreme Court.) I believe the point being made was that it has been too difficult to get Congress to act on reinstating something that is overwhelmingly popular across the nation. The FCC won't do it. Congress won't do it. Yet, when we put some numbers behind it, WaPo reported in December of last year on a study concluding that 8 in 10 Americans disapproved of the FCC's handling of net neutrality.
  - jtuente 8y ago
    > study concluding that 8 in 10 Americans disapproved of the FCC's handling of net neutrality. Disapproved about which part of its handling on the issue though? Did they disapprove of it being instated or revoked? Or the timeline on which either occurred? Or did they disagree with FCC shoehorning it with regulations written for telephones?
    - jonafato 8y ago
      Not OP, but I think they're referring to this story [0] about a survey conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland. The results showed 83% opposition to repealing the existing net neutrality regulations. A lot of the coverage around this topic makes it out to be a partisan issue, but all of the research shows strong support for net neutrality regulations across the board. [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/13/net-neutrality-keeps-the-web-from-running-like-an-airport-security-line-and-it-might-go-away/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bd59bcf90c8c https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/13...
abraham_lincoln 8y ago
It is a similar story with medical and recreational marijuana legalization.
schnable 8y ago
The executive branch being in control of this is how we ended up in this mess. It should be done through legislation so it won't change with the White House.
- EpiphanyMachine 8y ago
  You are totally right, updating my comment! It was removed by the FCC but should be added back by Congress.
- ataturk 8y ago
  I know the foregone conclusion is "net neutrality good, White House evil" but I'm unconvinced, honestly. I feel like if leftists/statists support something, it's probably generally bad for me, at least that's how it has always worked out for me. Also, I generally like the EFF, but I feel like EFF is controlled oppposition. Barlow was working with the CIA before he died. Which side is trying to eliminate free speech on the Internet circa 2018? The corporatists have this unholy alliance with the leftists is what I see going on there. Censorship on private services is at an all time high. I look across to Europe with their laws that criminalize speech and wonder if we really want that here in the states. I don't. I don't see how that is a defensible liberal position to even have. As a liberal, I welcome disagreement. Censorship is the health of the state, along with propaganda. But the only antidote for propaganda is more speech, not less.
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  The executive branch puts forth that they've banned net neutrality by virtue of not regulating it and are attempting to argue against state's rights at a convenient time when that party often argues for state's rights.
strictnein 8y ago
> Together, the AGs represent states totaling 165 million people — more than half of the U.S. population. By this logic, the executive branch represents 100% of the population.
- shkkmo 8y ago
  They do. Donald Trump represents us all.
peterwwillis 8y ago
I came here to say the opposite. The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. This is the system working for the people. Without the ability or interest from the states to push back against the federal government's decrees, we would be stuck with an authoritarian nation. Currently, trying to pass meaningful legislation is like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a pinhole. That should certainly be addressed, but we can't ignore the current battle just to focus on the bigger war.
- smsm42 8y ago
  > The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. Or rather, absence of action in this case. > This is the system working for the people. The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. > Currently, trying to pass meaningful legislation is like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a pinhole. Legislature is complex and hard. Not the reason to try and make courts into its replacement. That's not how the system is supposed to work, and doing that will result in a system even more broken than now.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    > The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. The tension between federal and state power is an intentionally designed feature of the system, and the fact that the states can push back is one of the several ways the system is supposed to work.
    - smsm42 8y ago
      > The tension between federal and state power is an intentionally designed feature of the system True, but "AGs of states finding friendly judge to force federal legislature to do their bidding" is not part of that design. If they just passed state-wide regulations and federal AG would sue them for it, then it'd be a different case, where one could justifiably invoke state rights. But in this case it's just plain lawfare.
mtgx 8y ago
> because our legislative bodies can't work together This is not (just) a people failure, it's a system failure. More precisely, it's the highly polarizing FPTP voting system that allows one party to dominate almost completely every election cycle instead of having to cooperate with others to government, regardless of how bad their behavior was the last time they run the government. With FPTP, it's just a matter of time before each of the two parties regains power, regardless of the policies they may promote. With FPTP the whole "red team vs blue team" game is inevitable, because FPTP promotes the existence of only two (very) long-term parties. The second issue is of course the issue of companies and wealthy people buying politicians' votes through lobbying. I mean, who can deny it at this point? It's very clear that this is what lobbying actually does. It's not used just to "try and convince politicians" of something at this point - it's almost literally used to buy the votes. A solution for each of these problems would be these: http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation#what_is_fair_voting http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation#what_is_fair_vot... https://anticorruptionact.org/ https://anticorruptionact.org/ https://www.wolf-pac.com/the_solution https://www.wolf-pac.com/the_solution
- lozenge 8y ago
  FPTP is bad but it's compounded by the presidential system. For example the UK's Prime Minister is elected by MPs, so it's not possible for them to be of a party that doesn't have enough voting power to actually pass laws, whereas in the US this is a common occurrence (as well as the President vetoing laws that the assembly has passed).
jwineinger 8y ago
I feel like they're trying to get people to conflate representation of >50% of people with support from >50% of people. The attorneys general of 22 states is 22 people. The percentage support in the general population is high (~80% last year) but they aren't the same thing. Marketing is everything. I completely agree that it should be decided in the legislature. I hate the idea of legislating from the bench. It was administrative policy when enacted in the Obama administration. Why should that enshrine it?
sbjs 8y ago
[Comment redacted for being not well thought out and more cynical and less positive than I'd like to be]
- Retric 8y ago
  Either you are not keeping up or have a lot of bias because the government makes a lot of changes every year and you will presumably agree with many of them. EX: While many people hate it, Obama Care got rid of the preexisting condition exception on health insurance. Which was a major issue for many people. Now you personally might not like that change, but that suggests you should like it when it's removed.
xenophonf 8y ago
The system's not broken. If that many people in that many states really want net neutrality legislation, then they should advocate for that within the House of Representatives, who are our direct representatives at the federal level. The Presidency is designed to have broad national appeal---across rural and urban states, large and small states---so it's not enough that a minority of attorneys-general want regulatory change.
- monocasa 8y ago
  Except that, due to gerrymandering, the ratios of our federal representatives don't match the ratios of the population.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    And even if you were to argue that gerrymandering didn't swing overall election results (it does), gerrymandering also makes certain seats more secure than they normally would be -- causing certain politicians to become incumbents. What reason does an incumbent have to listen to their local community's grievances? Their job isn't at risk if they don't please the public (which is the opposite of how it should be). So, even if the House of Representatives was a direct representation of the US population, they would still not have the incentive to listen to their populace.
  - travmatt 8y ago
    Even more egregious is the proportioned delegates within the electoral college.
    - zaphar 8y ago
      While it is possible that the electoral college needs improvement or replacement, any proposals along those lines should be sure to address the dangers of pure majority rule. While imperfect the electoral college is meant to be a way to mitigate that failures mode of democracy.
      - 8y ago
gxs 8y ago
It's the flip side to preventing what they called "Tyranny of the Majority", if my freshman polisci memory from many moons ago is accurate. Imagine a scenario where the states wanted to make abortion illegal. We would want that decision scrutinized vs making a change to the law simply because a majority wanted it.
danjoc 8y ago
>The system seems broken when When it does stuff you disagree with personally. That's a pretty universal feeling. While you may get plenty of internet points from your friends that agree with you, you have to realize, you are the one with the unpopular opinion this time. >50% of the population Counting illegals. 22 states isn't 50% either. This is the "not my president" argument all over again. The people won. ISPs won. FAANG lost. It's time FAANG pays their share for video streaming bandwidth. It's not like they don't have plenty of money parked in offshore banks to cover the gap. This is just a tactic for them to sow more division and hope for a favorable future election outcome. Pretty disturbing to watch actually if you agree with Ajit Pai and internet freedom.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  Thanks for the comedy relief. Putting Ajit Pai and internet freedom in the same phrase can only exist on a crass comedy or a complete malicious misunderstanding of the cause. The people won nothing, who won are entrenched monopolistic companies that don't step on their customer's neck just because it's illegal. Fb and Google are not yet that evil, though Fb is definitely making an effort.
- ivl 8y ago
  A minority of the people won. Let's be clear there. Due to the House being capped, the GOP can hold 55.2% of the seats with 49.9% of the votes. Talking purely votes, not population. And that's even ignoring the snarky comment about the people that voted the current majority in being from the less economically useful areas.
- tzs 8y ago
  > It's time FAANG pays their share for video streaming bandwidth They do pay their share. In general, when party X and party Y communicate on the internet, they both pay a service provide (their ISP) for a connection to the internet backbone. That payment to their ISP fully pays for the costs of the data X and Y send to or receive from the internet (or their ISP won't stay in business for long). What you are calling "internet freedom" is party X's ISP saying it won't allow X to communicate with Y unless Y also pays X's ISP, even though X is already paying X's ISP for the bandwidth X is using with Y.
smsm42 8y ago
I think it's a very common pattern now - to use courts as substitute for policymaking, since finding one judge that would issue necessary injunction, whatever it is, is easier than assembling a broad coalition to pass the decision through legislative/executive branches. It is also very wrong and very corrosive to the respect to the rule of law - if judges turn from independent arbiters watching for rules of the game into partisan players that use their power to bend the game to their side, eventually they'd have as much respect as other rank-and-file politicians, and that's not a very good place for the country to be in.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
briandear 8y ago
Federalism is about the states, not the population within those sovereign states. The US government is a federal system, population of specific states has little relevance. It seems like a nit-pick, but a misunderstanding federalism leads to assertions that the population actually matters when it comes to federal rules. The EU works similarly — otherwise why have a “rotating” presidency rather than simply having France and Germany pick the president by virtue of larger populations? Would Poland Lithuania find a population-based Presidency fair? Of course not, but Lithuania has an equal right to representation as a nation as would France — to think otherwise would be to destroy the EU (or the United States.)
toast_coder 8y ago
Did that premise matter to you when a majority of californians voted to ban gay marriage? Did you jump up and say 'the system is broken'. I really doubt it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

javagram 8y ago

The House of Representatives majority, which is held by the GOP and is anti - net neutrality, also represents more than 50% of the US population by this method of counting (which says the state AGs “represent” people who didn’t vote for them). Under the constitutional system of the US something like net neutrality could be passed as a law by the congress, but there hasn’t been a congress that chose to do so.

EpiphanyMachine 8y ago
Yes, and it's interesting some of those states have an AG sueing for a policy the House Representatives won't support.
- rapnie 8y ago
  Also interesting is who the Representatives represent when supporting the abolishment of NN.
eksemplar 8y ago
Maybe the way you calculate representation is wrong when 30% of the population gets 50% of the vote.
lotsofpulp 8y ago
It represents a gerrymandered "50%" of the population.
- ilikehurdles 8y ago
  Not sure why you’re downvoted when you’re right. The senate is meant to be the equalizer, where all states are on equal footing. The House is intended to favor more populous regions. It’s not that the people of the US don’t have as much of a say as they should — it’s that they don’t have _any_ say, anywhere.
barneygumble742 8y ago
The Senate actually came up with a resolution to reinstate NN but Paul Ryan refuses to bring it up for a vote in the House. So there is your legislative bottleneck. If it passes the house and the senate, of course trump will sign it and take credit for it. Not a difficult task there.
- smsm42 8y ago
  > If it passes the house and the senate If. It is likely to pass the House? > of course trump will sign it If Trump supports it, why doesn't he instruct Ajit Pai to implement this policy, or if he doesn't want to do it, why doesn't he replace Ajit Pai with somebody whose views on the subject align with those of Trump? I think it might be because Trump doesn't actually support it.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Trump doesn't actually care about it, and I would be surprised if he understood it. Right now he's against it because Obama did it.
    - smsm42 8y ago
      I think you confuse the caricature of Trump that is pleasing to you to behold because you disagree with him with the actual Trump. While it is pleasing to think people you disagree with are blithering idiots, in case one of them is a President of the US the ignorance of the real state of affairs is not on your side and is not going to serve you well. It is always wrong to underestimate your opponent, it's particularly dangerous if the opponent has a lot of power.
      - tzs 8y ago
        You raise some decent points in general, but it is hard to apply them to Trump in the case of net neutrality because he has actually spoken out on it [1]: > Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media [1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716...
nulbyte 8y ago
Like legislators, attorneys general represent "the people," not just those who voted for them, and that is the case even if no one voted for them. (As an interesting side-note, there are a few states whose attorneys general is governor-appointed and even one whose attorney general is appointed by the state's Supreme Court.) I believe the point being made was that it has been too difficult to get Congress to act on reinstating something that is overwhelmingly popular across the nation. The FCC won't do it. Congress won't do it. Yet, when we put some numbers behind it, WaPo reported in December of last year on a study concluding that 8 in 10 Americans disapproved of the FCC's handling of net neutrality.
- jtuente 8y ago
  > study concluding that 8 in 10 Americans disapproved of the FCC's handling of net neutrality. Disapproved about which part of its handling on the issue though? Did they disapprove of it being instated or revoked? Or the timeline on which either occurred? Or did they disagree with FCC shoehorning it with regulations written for telephones?
  - jonafato 8y ago
    Not OP, but I think they're referring to this story [0] about a survey conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland. The results showed 83% opposition to repealing the existing net neutrality regulations. A lot of the coverage around this topic makes it out to be a partisan issue, but all of the research shows strong support for net neutrality regulations across the board. [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/13/net-neutrality-keeps-the-web-from-running-like-an-airport-security-line-and-it-might-go-away/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bd59bcf90c8c https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/13...

abraham_lincoln 8y ago

It is a similar story with medical and recreational marijuana legalization.

schnable 8y ago

The executive branch being in control of this is how we ended up in this mess. It should be done through legislation so it won't change with the White House.

EpiphanyMachine 8y ago
You are totally right, updating my comment! It was removed by the FCC but should be added back by Congress.
ataturk 8y ago
I know the foregone conclusion is "net neutrality good, White House evil" but I'm unconvinced, honestly. I feel like if leftists/statists support something, it's probably generally bad for me, at least that's how it has always worked out for me. Also, I generally like the EFF, but I feel like EFF is controlled oppposition. Barlow was working with the CIA before he died. Which side is trying to eliminate free speech on the Internet circa 2018? The corporatists have this unholy alliance with the leftists is what I see going on there. Censorship on private services is at an all time high. I look across to Europe with their laws that criminalize speech and wonder if we really want that here in the states. I don't. I don't see how that is a defensible liberal position to even have. As a liberal, I welcome disagreement. Censorship is the health of the state, along with propaganda. But the only antidote for propaganda is more speech, not less.
kevin_b_er 8y ago
The executive branch puts forth that they've banned net neutrality by virtue of not regulating it and are attempting to argue against state's rights at a convenient time when that party often argues for state's rights.

strictnein 8y ago

> Together, the AGs represent states totaling 165 million people — more than half of the U.S. population. By this logic, the executive branch represents 100% of the population.

shkkmo 8y ago
They do. Donald Trump represents us all.

peterwwillis 8y ago

I came here to say the opposite. The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. This is the system working for the people. Without the ability or interest from the states to push back against the federal government's decrees, we would be stuck with an authoritarian nation. Currently, trying to pass meaningful legislation is like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a pinhole. That should certainly be addressed, but we can't ignore the current battle just to focus on the bigger war.

smsm42 8y ago
> The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. Or rather, absence of action in this case. > This is the system working for the people. The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. > Currently, trying to pass meaningful legislation is like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a pinhole. Legislature is complex and hard. Not the reason to try and make courts into its replacement. That's not how the system is supposed to work, and doing that will result in a system even more broken than now.
- twblalock 8y ago
  > The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. The tension between federal and state power is an intentionally designed feature of the system, and the fact that the states can push back is one of the several ways the system is supposed to work.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    > The tension between federal and state power is an intentionally designed feature of the system True, but "AGs of states finding friendly judge to force federal legislature to do their bidding" is not part of that design. If they just passed state-wide regulations and federal AG would sue them for it, then it'd be a different case, where one could justifiably invoke state rights. But in this case it's just plain lawfare.

mtgx 8y ago

> because our legislative bodies can't work together This is not (just) a people failure, it's a system failure. More precisely, it's the highly polarizing FPTP voting system that allows one party to dominate almost completely every election cycle instead of having to cooperate with others to government, regardless of how bad their behavior was the last time they run the government. With FPTP, it's just a matter of time before each of the two parties regains power, regardless of the policies they may promote. With FPTP the whole "red team vs blue team" game is inevitable, because FPTP promotes the existence of only two (very) long-term parties. The second issue is of course the issue of companies and wealthy people buying politicians' votes through lobbying. I mean, who can deny it at this point? It's very clear that this is what lobbying actually does. It's not used just to "try and convince politicians" of something at this point - it's almost literally used to buy the votes. A solution for each of these problems would be these: http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation#what_is_fair_voting http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation#what_is_fair_vot... https://anticorruptionact.org/ https://anticorruptionact.org/ https://www.wolf-pac.com/the_solution https://www.wolf-pac.com/the_solution

lozenge 8y ago
FPTP is bad but it's compounded by the presidential system. For example the UK's Prime Minister is elected by MPs, so it's not possible for them to be of a party that doesn't have enough voting power to actually pass laws, whereas in the US this is a common occurrence (as well as the President vetoing laws that the assembly has passed).

jwineinger 8y ago

I feel like they're trying to get people to conflate representation of >50% of people with support from >50% of people. The attorneys general of 22 states is 22 people. The percentage support in the general population is high (~80% last year) but they aren't the same thing. Marketing is everything. I completely agree that it should be decided in the legislature. I hate the idea of legislating from the bench. It was administrative policy when enacted in the Obama administration. Why should that enshrine it?

sbjs 8y ago

[Comment redacted for being not well thought out and more cynical and less positive than I'd like to be]

Retric 8y ago
Either you are not keeping up or have a lot of bias because the government makes a lot of changes every year and you will presumably agree with many of them. EX: While many people hate it, Obama Care got rid of the preexisting condition exception on health insurance. Which was a major issue for many people. Now you personally might not like that change, but that suggests you should like it when it's removed.

xenophonf 8y ago

The system's not broken. If that many people in that many states really want net neutrality legislation, then they should advocate for that within the House of Representatives, who are our direct representatives at the federal level. The Presidency is designed to have broad national appeal---across rural and urban states, large and small states---so it's not enough that a minority of attorneys-general want regulatory change.

monocasa 8y ago
Except that, due to gerrymandering, the ratios of our federal representatives don't match the ratios of the population.
- cyphar 8y ago
  And even if you were to argue that gerrymandering didn't swing overall election results (it does), gerrymandering also makes certain seats more secure than they normally would be -- causing certain politicians to become incumbents. What reason does an incumbent have to listen to their local community's grievances? Their job isn't at risk if they don't please the public (which is the opposite of how it should be). So, even if the House of Representatives was a direct representation of the US population, they would still not have the incentive to listen to their populace.
- travmatt 8y ago
  Even more egregious is the proportioned delegates within the electoral college.
  - zaphar 8y ago
    While it is possible that the electoral college needs improvement or replacement, any proposals along those lines should be sure to address the dangers of pure majority rule. While imperfect the electoral college is meant to be a way to mitigate that failures mode of democracy.
    - 8y ago

gxs 8y ago

It's the flip side to preventing what they called "Tyranny of the Majority", if my freshman polisci memory from many moons ago is accurate. Imagine a scenario where the states wanted to make abortion illegal. We would want that decision scrutinized vs making a change to the law simply because a majority wanted it.

danjoc 8y ago

>The system seems broken when When it does stuff you disagree with personally. That's a pretty universal feeling. While you may get plenty of internet points from your friends that agree with you, you have to realize, you are the one with the unpopular opinion this time. >50% of the population Counting illegals. 22 states isn't 50% either. This is the "not my president" argument all over again. The people won. ISPs won. FAANG lost. It's time FAANG pays their share for video streaming bandwidth. It's not like they don't have plenty of money parked in offshore banks to cover the gap. This is just a tactic for them to sow more division and hope for a favorable future election outcome. Pretty disturbing to watch actually if you agree with Ajit Pai and internet freedom.

raverbashing 8y ago
Thanks for the comedy relief. Putting Ajit Pai and internet freedom in the same phrase can only exist on a crass comedy or a complete malicious misunderstanding of the cause. The people won nothing, who won are entrenched monopolistic companies that don't step on their customer's neck just because it's illegal. Fb and Google are not yet that evil, though Fb is definitely making an effort.
ivl 8y ago
A minority of the people won. Let's be clear there. Due to the House being capped, the GOP can hold 55.2% of the seats with 49.9% of the votes. Talking purely votes, not population. And that's even ignoring the snarky comment about the people that voted the current majority in being from the less economically useful areas.
tzs 8y ago
> It's time FAANG pays their share for video streaming bandwidth They do pay their share. In general, when party X and party Y communicate on the internet, they both pay a service provide (their ISP) for a connection to the internet backbone. That payment to their ISP fully pays for the costs of the data X and Y send to or receive from the internet (or their ISP won't stay in business for long). What you are calling "internet freedom" is party X's ISP saying it won't allow X to communicate with Y unless Y also pays X's ISP, even though X is already paying X's ISP for the bandwidth X is using with Y.

smsm42 8y ago

I think it's a very common pattern now - to use courts as substitute for policymaking, since finding one judge that would issue necessary injunction, whatever it is, is easier than assembling a broad coalition to pass the decision through legislative/executive branches. It is also very wrong and very corrosive to the respect to the rule of law - if judges turn from independent arbiters watching for rules of the game into partisan players that use their power to bend the game to their side, eventually they'd have as much respect as other rank-and-file politicians, and that's not a very good place for the country to be in.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

briandear 8y ago

Federalism is about the states, not the population within those sovereign states. The US government is a federal system, population of specific states has little relevance. It seems like a nit-pick, but a misunderstanding federalism leads to assertions that the population actually matters when it comes to federal rules. The EU works similarly — otherwise why have a “rotating” presidency rather than simply having France and Germany pick the president by virtue of larger populations? Would Poland Lithuania find a population-based Presidency fair? Of course not, but Lithuania has an equal right to representation as a nation as would France — to think otherwise would be to destroy the EU (or the United States.)

toast_coder 8y ago

Did that premise matter to you when a majority of californians voted to ban gay marriage? Did you jump up and say 'the system is broken'. I really doubt it.