6 ms·

I appreciate what Alexis is trying to do here but I hope he isn't assuming that the FCC just doesn't understand the problem. That's how this reads to me. Mayb

I appreciate what Alexis is trying to do here but I hope he isn't assuming that the FCC just doesn't understand the problem. That's how this reads to me. Maybe the idea is to be diplomatic. I don't think the FCC cares. The FCC understands what is going on and it wants to do whatever is best for the FCC. The best thing for tech companies to do is to start destroying some political careers. That's the only thing the machine understands and the only thing it's really going to respond to.

alexqgb 12y ago
That's the essence of contemporary lobbying. Most legislators can be persuaded with campaign contributions (the carrot) but those that can't get threatened with the stick, which comes in the form of a previously unheard of but suddenly flush primary opponent. Add gerrymandering to the mix, and this tactic becomes even harder to resist, since the effective sidelining of an opposing party means that no matter what else happens, the seat in question stays with the side that already holds it. This is what people mean by "safe" seats, by the way. They're safe for the party. Particular incumbents, not so much. So yes. If you have a realistic hope of getting what you want it's because you're known to have the power to end careers. If legislators refuse to cooperate, their prospects dim. If an agency gets uncooperative, the legislators who oversee it turn the budget screws, causing pain and wrecking livelihoods until the backer with the biggest stick wins. These are the mechanics of regulatory capture, and they're in operation every day. Obviously, all of this deeply depressing, and provides an excellent argument for getting private finance out of elections altogether, since that really is the mechanism upon which American-style corruption depends. And while we're at it, de-rigging the vote with non-partisan redistricting and establishing a nation-wide version of the (pre-gutted) Voting Rights Act would go a long way in fostering a government of, by, and for the people. But in the meantime, when our systems is less like a democracy and more like an oligarchy, getting what you want means playing by the rules that exist. And that means lobbying with both carrot and stick. They hit you, you hit back. And not only do you hit back harder, you hit back so hard that they will never get up again. That's what the SOPA/PIPA backlash did: threatened a sweeping act of maximum violence to an unprecedented number of careers. It was brutal and it was ugly, but it worked. And it did so when there's not much else that does.
- nickff 12y ago
  >"our systems is less like a democracy and more like an oligarchy" What if the problem is simply that very few voters care about the issue, and that even less would be willing to change their vote over this issue?
  - girvo 12y ago
    Which is possibly (probably?) correct in this case, and many other issues we as tech people care about. But that doesn't dispute the facts in his post; it's merely a tangential thing. For example, most regular voters care about copyright extensions, but the lobbyists do, and so it gets extended time after time.
    - latj 12y ago
      > Which is possibly (probably?) correct in this case, and many other issues we as tech people care about. There are plenty of issues that average 'tech people' dont care about that other professions might. I have not seen any evidence that as a whole technical people care more about whats going on in the world. When voter turn out is low, it is not because people dont care about the issues. It is because they dont believe their vote is being counted, cant distinguish between candidates, or simply dont think any candidate can lead to the kind of governance they would prefer.
  - dontmindifido 12y ago
    There is a disconnect between voting and policy that will need to be addressed before you are able to call it a democracy again.
- juliangamble 12y ago
  Lawrence Lessig is working on a people-power initiative to fix the problem of getting private finance out of elections: https://mayday.us/ https://mayday.us/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_PAC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_PAC
  - 12y ago
twrkit 12y ago
see 'House of Cards' for textbook examples of this in action
w1ntermute 12y ago
> The best thing for tech companies to do is to start destroying some political careers. This could be pretty interesting. For example, maybe Google could mine the web (or Twitter their tweet data) for public information on politicians and start airing their dirty laundry. For example, if someone Googles a certain politician, it could show that information at the top of the search if the politician doesn't do what they want.
- pyrocat 12y ago
  Wow, that's an absolutely terrible idea. I don't think Google would ever do that, if simply because the risk of it getting out is too great, it would absolutely destroy the trust of the brand.
  - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
    But, interestingly, there is nothing stopping us doing it ... I think it is still possible to game google results such that the top results for any politicians name includes "sex scandal of senator X" simply by a lot of people linking to it. It's democratic (if you are happy for Russian links to count in your senators feeds)
    - Tossrock 12y ago
      That's called google-bombing and is a well-established phenomenon.
      - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
        Thank you - could not remember the term
- honksillet 12y ago
  We don't want Google to be the next Stasi!
  - 12y ago
mbesto 12y ago
I just had a read over the letter and the first 2-3 paragraphs talked about nothing other than what's in it for YC (and similar companies) that are worth "billions of dollars". I'll be honest - I cringed when the focal statement of the letter started "We need the FCC" - as opposed to perhaps what could have been expressed as "In order for the FCC to meet its objectives of XYZ, we are asking that they consider ABC". One thing I've learned about trying to motivate someone else to do something - a la Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people" and Pink's "To Sell is Human" - is to shut up about yourself and focus on the other person/party. Remember, we're all human.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > One thing I've learned about trying to motivate someone else to do something - a la Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people" and Pink's "To Sell is Human" - is to shut up about yourself and focus on the other person/party. The FCC -- as is common in regulatory agencies releasing proposals with a call for comments -- specifically wants impacted parties to detail how they are impacted (including financial impacts), because the FCC is tasked to take those impacts into account.
  - graylights 12y ago
    It makes sense. If I say this proposal hurts companies like ACME Tech. Then they should just be looking for ACME Tech's comments. But I wonder how it balances individual impacts versus business impacts. Is a thousand people complaining "This ruins my ability to watch netflix" as significant as netflix same comments in terms of its business losses.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> I don't think the FCC cares. I think the FCC cares, otherwise, it wouldn't keep adopting regulation aimed to restrict the degree to which broadband providers can deviate from neutrality. They've also specifically asked for comments on how their current proposal on how to do that can be improved, and the YC comment letter addresses that question and the more specific subordinate questions asked within it.
3rd3 12y ago
How would one go about destroying someone’s political career?
- CapitalistCartr 12y ago
  1) Support their opponent in the primary with enough to unseat them. 2) Send private dectectives to follow them. 3) Dig up dirt from their past.
- troygoode 12y ago
  By financing their opponent in the primaries.
- dkrich 12y ago
  See Grover Norquist. He approached congressional members of both parties with a pledge to never raise taxes. If a member refused to sign or signed and violated the pledge, his group would go into the local elections in that person's constituency and heavily fund their opponents. If you aren't familiar with this, you might be surprised to see who signed it.
benihana 12y ago
The FCC has specifically asked people to comment on their proposal. Either they do care, or they're staging some very bizarre and pointless PR stunt because it really doesn't matter if anyone likes them or not.
- Alupis 12y ago
  It's standard to have a commenting session on a proposal. It neither signals support or withdraw from the issue.
- m12k 12y ago
  The vibe I've been getting from Tom Wheeler is that he would probably personally prefer reclassifying ISPs as common carriers, but there's a ton of powerful forces leaning on him not to, and his half-assed proposal is the best he could get. But if he could point to an "anti-SOPA-like" grassroots movement and go "There's a ton of bad PR if you mess with these people, we better give them what they want", he might be allowed to reclassify after all. Though I'll be the first to admit, the sudden disappearance of half a million comments from the FCC site doesn't really corroborate this theory...
knowtheory 12y ago
Starting conversations with the assumption that the person on the other end of the conversation is acting in bad faith will gain you nothing. If they are going to act in bad faith anyway, what you say doesn't matter. Beyond that, the art of politics is to make sure you look reasonable at all times, and can make your case both to the decision maker in question, but also to everybody else now watching said decision maker in light of the statements you have made. This is a rallying cry, and a notification to the FCC chairman that the YC community cares, is paying attention, and has pointed feelings on the matter, both in terms of policy and outcome.

alexqgb 12y ago

That's the essence of contemporary lobbying. Most legislators can be persuaded with campaign contributions (the carrot) but those that can't get threatened with the stick, which comes in the form of a previously unheard of but suddenly flush primary opponent. Add gerrymandering to the mix, and this tactic becomes even harder to resist, since the effective sidelining of an opposing party means that no matter what else happens, the seat in question stays with the side that already holds it. This is what people mean by "safe" seats, by the way. They're safe for the party. Particular incumbents, not so much. So yes. If you have a realistic hope of getting what you want it's because you're known to have the power to end careers. If legislators refuse to cooperate, their prospects dim. If an agency gets uncooperative, the legislators who oversee it turn the budget screws, causing pain and wrecking livelihoods until the backer with the biggest stick wins. These are the mechanics of regulatory capture, and they're in operation every day. Obviously, all of this deeply depressing, and provides an excellent argument for getting private finance out of elections altogether, since that really is the mechanism upon which American-style corruption depends. And while we're at it, de-rigging the vote with non-partisan redistricting and establishing a nation-wide version of the (pre-gutted) Voting Rights Act would go a long way in fostering a government of, by, and for the people. But in the meantime, when our systems is less like a democracy and more like an oligarchy, getting what you want means playing by the rules that exist. And that means lobbying with both carrot and stick. They hit you, you hit back. And not only do you hit back harder, you hit back so hard that they will never get up again. That's what the SOPA/PIPA backlash did: threatened a sweeping act of maximum violence to an unprecedented number of careers. It was brutal and it was ugly, but it worked. And it did so when there's not much else that does.

nickff 12y ago
>"our systems is less like a democracy and more like an oligarchy" What if the problem is simply that very few voters care about the issue, and that even less would be willing to change their vote over this issue?
- girvo 12y ago
  Which is possibly (probably?) correct in this case, and many other issues we as tech people care about. But that doesn't dispute the facts in his post; it's merely a tangential thing. For example, most regular voters care about copyright extensions, but the lobbyists do, and so it gets extended time after time.
  - latj 12y ago
    > Which is possibly (probably?) correct in this case, and many other issues we as tech people care about. There are plenty of issues that average 'tech people' dont care about that other professions might. I have not seen any evidence that as a whole technical people care more about whats going on in the world. When voter turn out is low, it is not because people dont care about the issues. It is because they dont believe their vote is being counted, cant distinguish between candidates, or simply dont think any candidate can lead to the kind of governance they would prefer.
- dontmindifido 12y ago
  There is a disconnect between voting and policy that will need to be addressed before you are able to call it a democracy again.
juliangamble 12y ago
Lawrence Lessig is working on a people-power initiative to fix the problem of getting private finance out of elections: https://mayday.us/ https://mayday.us/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_PAC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_PAC
- 12y ago

twrkit 12y ago

see 'House of Cards' for textbook examples of this in action

w1ntermute 12y ago

> The best thing for tech companies to do is to start destroying some political careers. This could be pretty interesting. For example, maybe Google could mine the web (or Twitter their tweet data) for public information on politicians and start airing their dirty laundry. For example, if someone Googles a certain politician, it could show that information at the top of the search if the politician doesn't do what they want.

pyrocat 12y ago
Wow, that's an absolutely terrible idea. I don't think Google would ever do that, if simply because the risk of it getting out is too great, it would absolutely destroy the trust of the brand.
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  But, interestingly, there is nothing stopping us doing it ... I think it is still possible to game google results such that the top results for any politicians name includes "sex scandal of senator X" simply by a lot of people linking to it. It's democratic (if you are happy for Russian links to count in your senators feeds)
  - Tossrock 12y ago
    That's called google-bombing and is a well-established phenomenon.
    - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
      Thank you - could not remember the term
honksillet 12y ago
We don't want Google to be the next Stasi!
- 12y ago

mbesto 12y ago

I just had a read over the letter and the first 2-3 paragraphs talked about nothing other than what's in it for YC (and similar companies) that are worth "billions of dollars". I'll be honest - I cringed when the focal statement of the letter started "We need the FCC" - as opposed to perhaps what could have been expressed as "In order for the FCC to meet its objectives of XYZ, we are asking that they consider ABC". One thing I've learned about trying to motivate someone else to do something - a la Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people" and Pink's "To Sell is Human" - is to shut up about yourself and focus on the other person/party. Remember, we're all human.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> One thing I've learned about trying to motivate someone else to do something - a la Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people" and Pink's "To Sell is Human" - is to shut up about yourself and focus on the other person/party. The FCC -- as is common in regulatory agencies releasing proposals with a call for comments -- specifically wants impacted parties to detail how they are impacted (including financial impacts), because the FCC is tasked to take those impacts into account.
- graylights 12y ago
  It makes sense. If I say this proposal hurts companies like ACME Tech. Then they should just be looking for ACME Tech's comments. But I wonder how it balances individual impacts versus business impacts. Is a thousand people complaining "This ruins my ability to watch netflix" as significant as netflix same comments in terms of its business losses.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> I don't think the FCC cares. I think the FCC cares, otherwise, it wouldn't keep adopting regulation aimed to restrict the degree to which broadband providers can deviate from neutrality. They've also specifically asked for comments on how their current proposal on how to do that can be improved, and the YC comment letter addresses that question and the more specific subordinate questions asked within it.

3rd3 12y ago

How would one go about destroying someone’s political career?

CapitalistCartr 12y ago
1) Support their opponent in the primary with enough to unseat them. 2) Send private dectectives to follow them. 3) Dig up dirt from their past.
troygoode 12y ago
By financing their opponent in the primaries.
dkrich 12y ago
See Grover Norquist. He approached congressional members of both parties with a pledge to never raise taxes. If a member refused to sign or signed and violated the pledge, his group would go into the local elections in that person's constituency and heavily fund their opponents. If you aren't familiar with this, you might be surprised to see who signed it.

benihana 12y ago

The FCC has specifically asked people to comment on their proposal. Either they do care, or they're staging some very bizarre and pointless PR stunt because it really doesn't matter if anyone likes them or not.

Alupis 12y ago
It's standard to have a commenting session on a proposal. It neither signals support or withdraw from the issue.
m12k 12y ago
The vibe I've been getting from Tom Wheeler is that he would probably personally prefer reclassifying ISPs as common carriers, but there's a ton of powerful forces leaning on him not to, and his half-assed proposal is the best he could get. But if he could point to an "anti-SOPA-like" grassroots movement and go "There's a ton of bad PR if you mess with these people, we better give them what they want", he might be allowed to reclassify after all. Though I'll be the first to admit, the sudden disappearance of half a million comments from the FCC site doesn't really corroborate this theory...

knowtheory 12y ago

Starting conversations with the assumption that the person on the other end of the conversation is acting in bad faith will gain you nothing. If they are going to act in bad faith anyway, what you say doesn't matter. Beyond that, the art of politics is to make sure you look reasonable at all times, and can make your case both to the decision maker in question, but also to everybody else now watching said decision maker in light of the statements you have made. This is a rallying cry, and a notification to the FCC chairman that the YC community cares, is paying attention, and has pointed feelings on the matter, both in terms of policy and outcome.