Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChuckMcM | Hacker News Reader

But it does matter, because it shows malice and intent. All three data points have to be taken together (FCC Opens up comments, Comments criminally spammed, FCC decides the issue X). Given the clear and convincing evidence of malfeasance in the comment stream, the FCC's actions can be judged as reasonable or unreasonable.

So what matters is that we shine light on their agenda so that it is not possible for them to credibly deny they are not following their own policies.

View on HN

> So what matters is that we shine light on their agenda so that it is not possible for them to credibly deny they are not following their own policies.

And who is going to shine a line or report on that? The "fake news" media?

Nobody will care, they don't want to hear it and they won't believe it, cognitive dissonance is amazingly powerful.

It's a long game. This administration will (eventually) turn over, and we need the new guys to be very clear about where the old guys fucked up.

The fake news is also in favor of the "new guys".

Cognitive dissonance is when you hold two opposing viewpoints at once. Like if you think killing animals for food is wrong but you love eating steaks and plan to continue doing so.

It does not mean choosing to ignore reality or being willfully blind like you are using it here. I'm not sure how it has become popular to misuse it in that way over the last couple years, but it seems to be a thing.

I think notadoc meant to use the term "mental gymnastics".

(I agree "cognitive dissonance" seems to be misused lately. That's how language evolves, unfortunately. And to add to your definition, it's the stress from with holding two opposing thoughts, hence the dissonance.)

How about "cognitive disconnect" as the better descriptive phrase?

It's just plain old confirmation bias, though I like the more recent[1] semantic extension of the phrase "epistemic closure" to describe belief systems impervious to outside information.

[1] - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28conserv.html

If the FCC ruling is challenged in court, then hopefully the court would do that. The FCC doesn't have to follow what the comments tell them to do, but they do have to take their arguments into consideration.

What does spam have to do with the FCC's decision making?

Nothing.

Comments are for submitting ideas. It was never supposed to be a popular vote.

Shine a light for who to see?

Hopefully the EFF can challenge this in court and this provides good evidence that the FCC is ignoring what Americans want.

Ignoring what Americans want is almost the entire point of regulatory agencies like the FCC. They're a bureaucratic/technocratic check on the democratic process. (Which is why, in my opinion they're unconstitutional, but that's an argument for another day.)

That doesn't really explain the fact that a lot of agencies were created because of public outcry, such as the FDA. I think agencies exist because lawmakers don't really have the ability to move decisively when it is needed.

isn't the constitution itself a check on the democratic process?

Many mechanisms in the constitution serve as checks on the democratic process. Adding checks in addition to those is unconstitutional: http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060974.pd....

FCC's job is to make and enforce policy that conforms to the law set by Congress, not to hold and obey public votes.

Yet, they are not allowed to ignore the public's comments. They must take them into consideration, even if they end up deciding to act against public opinion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com