Hacker News Reader

Comment by VonGuard | Hacker News Reader

This is the end. If we think this guy's gonna listen to the people, we're completely wrong.

This is why getting laws passed, instead of relying on executive orders and the whims of bureaucrats in power at the time, is so crucial.

The same faction that opposes net neutrality in the FCC also controls both Houses of Congress plus the White House, in fact, the change in the latter that completes that control is why they control the FCC, not an unrelated independent event.

So laws would be no less vulnerable than FCC regulations.

But eight years ago, the opposing faction had even more control. They could have enshrined net neutrality in law then.

And then it could be repealed now. For the same reason the the FCC approach will be.

They have 'control' but can't get past a filibuster without risking having all their changes revoked the next time they lose control.

That's not going to happen as long as there are at least 40 Republicans in the senate. They used a filibuster to block a moderate Supreme Court nominee, you think they'll even consider allowing an internet reform bill to come to a vote?

How ever did things get made into law in the past?

Compromise. Something that neither of the two major parties seem interested in anymore. It is that, not the allocation of seats to a party in Congress, which is why things haven't gotten done.

The Republicans are not interested in compromise. They've pulled the Dems so far right, they're practically center now.

and then paint them all as crazy left wing idiots who want to censor everything.

Then they whine that democrats are jerks when dems call them anything.

Calling names is fine. It's the violent riots that are getting annoying.

going to be more and more of them until the people demand this president is gone.

Indeed, the Democrats have been right of center for some time. Obamacare is essentially identical to plans previously proposed by Republicans.

Compromise works when there is a good faith effort towards it. That's not what happened during the Obama years.

> They used a filibuster to block a moderate Supreme Court nominee

If you are talking about Garland then no they didn't. They just didn't vote for months. They just refused to do their jobs.

Yes, that might be good, but it's a pipe dream at the moment. Further, having congress deal with such issues is open to far more political manipulation.

Having people who are competent at their job in regulatory positions seems just as important as having Congress do their job for them.

Oh, it might just well happen. The engineers that actually make this stuff work generally know whats up, and if things start to turn too sour, just watch them bring the whole damn net to a screeching halt. It'll make the SOPA blackout of 2012 look like daylight.

It's not the end. Things are just degrading, boringly, as they have been.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com