Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
This site[1] will help you search the database. I read a number of comments that start out with some variation of "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II..."
It's amazing how many people spontaneously had the same opinion on a handful of days in May and July this year! /s
[1]: https://www.comcastroturf.com/
Edit: You were making a joke, weren't you... (woosh)
It's a political gambit.
We're finding out that people across the entire breadth of the Trump administration have ties to shady Russian dealings. Given the criticism over certain media outlets, and how those are increasingly intertwined with the delivery of said media, it seems a fair question to raise.
The U.S. has had a flawed democracy regardless of foreign meddling. Americans do not even elect their president directly.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_Inde...
Because it takes agreement from three quarters of the states to change the constitution for good reason, and three quarters of the states aren't convinced we don't need them anymore.
The big concession to the South with the 3/5 compromise which primarily had an effect upon the representation in the House, and correspondingly an effect on the Electoral College.
Actually the reason there is both the House and the Senate is that the Senate was intended to represent the voice of the states in the federal government. It wasn't supposed to be only about how many votes the people of each state get. Senators were originally appointed by the state legislatures.
That was changed in a fit of populism in the early 20th century and has caused only problems ever since.
50% of the US population lives in 10 states.
Don't you think the other 40 states would like a say too? Or do you (mistakenly) believe the concerns of urban citizens are identical to those living in rural areas?
However. I think you grossly underestimate just how many guns there are in the U.S. There's like 300 million guns floating around, enough to arm every able-bodied adult.
It's not the futility that's preventing armed revolution in the U.S., it's that despite all the crying people do their lives are really good enough that they have something to lose by tearing the whole system down.
I can't predict who would prevail, but if there was a major crisis that sparked a serious revolution that involved millions or tens of millions of U.S. citizens in armed revolt. It might not be as open and shut as you imagine. Military, police, state and local governments aren't going to automatically and universally side with the federal government. It could spiral out of control in ways you can't imagine. And who knows, maybe foreign powers get involved and depending on the circumstances who's to say who they side with.
We're no where near close to anything like that though, so of course it can be hard to contemplate. Imagining that it's impossible is just a lack of imagination though.
The problem that gun legislation faces is that it will take generations to feel reasonable impact of anything but the most draconian laws, and the most draconian laws would never pass. And unfortunately we're short sighted. If something can't be done in a year or an election cycle, it's hopeless. If the results aren't instant and tangible, what was the point? It's a real problem, the lack of long term planning and the willingness to pay for two pounds of cure instead of an ounce of prevention at ten times the price.
They would side with whoever pays them.
Because they were exceedingly well educated, with a knowledge of the rise and fall of nations, and of the shortcomings of human nature. They designed a system of checks and balances that gives the individual the best chances at success in such a world. The reasoning behind these decisions are well documented in the Federalist Papers.
In which loopholes have been found and exploited to such a degree that these checks and balances now gives the individuals with enough moral terpitude the best chance at success at the expense of most individuals.
Here in Sweden the largest block with most seats get to chose the Prime minister and the seats a decided through the general election. Each seats in turn do not represent a set number of voters, but rather represent different areas in order to not let higher population areas completely dominate low population areas. As a result, citizens of the island of gotland which its two seats has almost half the normal amount of voters per seat, based on the idea that people from there should be represented by at least two different political parties and out of 349 seats it don't really make any difference in the big picture.
Democratic systems are complex. It doesn't make it flawed.
This is a design feature, not a bug. The founding fathers would close your trouble ticket citing the federalist papers.
Personally I want to get rid of representative government as soon as possible and move towards a participatory model instead.
Public forms on the internet != democracy.
I disagree. I think that's exactly what democracy is. That's why the Founding Fathers decided the US should be a republic.
But I for one would rather take the high road. Please call your senator(s) and representative(s) and let them know how upset this all is making you!
Great suggestion.
It's not the future; it's been going on for a long time. The Chinese and Russian governments have long run large astroturfing propaganda operations, astroturfing by U.S. businesses (and I assume those in other countries) is an old story, and the last U.S. presidential election was swamped by social media propaganda operations, foreign and domestic.
When I mention the moral level I don't mean in a kindergargertenish way. The moral dimension of conflict is a key part of modern military strategy, because success in war, as an elaboration of politics, depends heavily on public buy-in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist...
This is my new favorite name for a residential street.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/issuesum.php?id=TEC
Drill down to find a list of firms who can recruit dead people and random special interests (see here from some of the interest groups who will rent you their outrage: http://stopthecap.com/2009/10/02/special-report-astroturf-ov... ).
Handily enough, you also get an idea of what it costs right on Open Secrets. I wish medical price lists were this easy, and I bet there are some dead people who think so, too.
Edit: I say "little" in comparison to the seriously high traffic sites like Netflix or Google.
Max-Beer street would start looking pretty good, especially if Max-HN was also available there. I'd be interested to know what, if any, effect the demise of net neutrality would have on American service providers with foreign customers.
There's a "Wildgoose Chase" in the Clarence Valley, Australia.. I find that one pretty good
It should be treated as openly hostile to the interests of the general public.
The U$ is an oligarchy in all but name.
These are regulations designed for phone companies in the 1930s. Why should you worry? Because all network traffic will be subject to extremely broad obscenity laws.
I will try to find the legislation shortly, but effectively, causing "offense" or transmitting "obscene" material gives the federal government an excuse to prosecute you.
Suddenly, posting on 4chan can get you thrown in prison.
Edit: found it[0], I dont understand why no one is aware of this. I plead that you take a moment to check the link, as this is a dangerous extension of government power, especially in combination with current surveillence.
It is another means to possibly silence whistleblowers and/or opposition.
The sky is not falling.
More importantly, why would you want the federal government to have such abusable power? The sky may not be falling now, but that is no excuse to do nothing while our freedoms are eroded.
This seems to be a common error among hackers who assume that statute = law and don't consider the history of how courts have interpreted and circumscribed statutes over the years. Of course, this is also a structural problem in our legal system which makes it quite difficult to ascertain what the actual operational parameters are without spending a lot of time in a law library or its digital equivalent. Much of what lawyers are paid for is their knowledge of how to trace and apply that history to new fact patterns.
Girls Lean Back Everywhere by Edward de Grazia is widely considered the best single work on the law of obscenity, although it's heavily focused on sexuality and pornography and may seem somewhat dated by today's standards.
But, I would be happy if my cynicism gets proven wrong.
Edit: The other provision requires the sender of obscenity to know the recipient is under 18 - this is worth re-evaluating in the light of two consensual teenagers, but is nowhere near the sky-is-falling everyone-goes-to-prison since it's hard to prove you know recipients of an anonymous message board.
not even the supreme court can define obscenity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
It doesn't bother you that a sizable proportion of mostly harmless messages on Facebook, Twitter, 4chan, etc are suddenly potential felonies? And that they can be used to target innocent individuals by the federal government?
What happens when a legitimate whistleblower becomes a problem, and suddenly an angry twitter rant becomes an excuse for arrest?
I don't see that. The GP accepted your statement, that it requires intent to harass and abuse, and commented on it.
Also, why should the GP accept your analysis? Do you have expertise?
In case it isn't obvious, I'm not a lawyer. No one should accept my analysis, because I'm a stranger on the internet, or a Turing-Test-succeeding imitation of one. Likewise, I'm not going to accept OP's analysis for the same reasons. But I will participate in a discussion that allows readers to explore alternate ideas and viewpoints, chasing an overly-idealistic goal of inspiring each of us into self-driven personal growth. Because that's a virtue worth striving for no matter which side of the argument you are on.
[1]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140623/07052927656/rep-i...
And the law you are referring to isn't from the 1930s. It's the 1996 Telecom Act.
Here's what the order said about that section:
We also note that the restrictions on obscene and illicit content in sections 223 and 231(to the extent enforced)1647—as well as the associated limitations on liability—in many cases, do not vary with the classification decisions in this Order, and thus likewise are not encompassed by the forbearance in this Order.1648 To the extent that certain of these provisions would benefit broadband providers and could instead be viewed as provisions that are newly applied to broadband providers by virtue of the classification decisions in this Order, it would better promote broadband deployment, and thus better serve the public interest, if we continue to apply those provisions.1
Footnote -> We note that many of the relevant provisions in these sections stem from the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which federal courts have enjoined from being enforced. COPA amended the Communications Act by adding sections 230(d) and 231 and amending parts of sections 223(h)(2) and 230(d)–(f). See Child Online Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 105-277, §§ 1401–05, 112 Stat. 2681-736–2681-741 (1998). After COPA reached the Supreme Court twice, a federal court held that COPA is unconstitutional and placed a permanent injunction against its enforcement. The decision was affirmed on appeal, and petition for writ of certiorari has been denied. See ACLU v. Reno, 31 F. Supp.2d 473 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (enjoining the enforcement of the Act), aff’d, 217 F.3d 162 (3rd Cir. 2000), vacated and remanded, Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (2002) (finding that the Act’s reference to contemporary community standards on its own does not render it unconstitutional and the 3rd Circuit must consider additional matters), aff’d, ACLU v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240 (3rd Cir. 2003), aff’d and remanded, Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (instructing that the district court should update the factual record and take into account current, applicable technologies); ACLU v. Gonzales, 478 F. Supp.2d 775 (E.D. Pa 2007) (entering a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Act after holding that it is facially unconstitutional), aff’d, ACLU v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 181 (3rd Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1032 (2009). The Communications Decency Act (CDA) (Pub. L. No. 104-104, §§ 501–02, 110 Stat. 56, 133–36), which amended section 223 of the Communications Act, has also been overturned in part, by the Supreme Court. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). However, the constitutionally offensive parts of the CDA were amended by the PROTECT Act, which is still good law. See Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools against the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21, § 603, 117 Stat. 650, 687 (2003)
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pd...
>More than half of Americans (59 percent) said they consider this the lowest point in U.S. history that they can remember — a figure spanning every generation, including those who lived through World War II and Vietnam, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/11/lowest-point...
I only bring up Trump because a lot of people argue his mere existence and rhetoric as bringing down their quality of life, which is a nonsense point that isn't worth an initial consideration until his negativity is firmly entrenched in legally established policy.
This is offered to supplement rather than refute your point though.
In the end this should not matter, FCC is not running a vote. If they count pro /against this way then it's their problem. Arguments should be the only deciding factor.
Perhaps. But would you expect the FCC to actually sift through millions of stuffed comments just to get to the few good ones?
By stuffing the system with trash comments, the submitters effectively guaranteed that the FCC won't bother to read any of the comments.
FCC will get their POV and virtually every good argument, especially in such a major case. The "send your comment" is essentially a sham, making us think we have a voice (that matters)
In the end only actual politics matters. If you want to do a petition then do a partition. If you want to complain then target a politician.
That is an interesting theory but ultimately the FCC answers to Congress. They are not allowed to do their own politics (although sometimes they try). They are in the end just a regulator. They do make a nice scapegoat so as to allow the actual politicians to avoid criticism of the policies those politicians created.