Hacker News Reader

Comment by Rapzid | Hacker News Reader

I think the biggest tragedy is that media outlets are not discussing the misdirection of this whole thing.

The new "leaders" are billing this as "restoring internet freedom" by repealing "Obama Era" regulation as if things are being put back to some prior status quo that never actually existed. FCC enforced this rules prior, Verizon challenged on overreach and won, and the adjustments were made to bring enforcement within their reach. This article does a pretty good job of covering some of the history: http://fortune.com/2017/11/22/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-ve... .

The rest of the details are kinda moot IMHO when the foundation of their argument, that this is going back to some more free internet(free for ISPs) that never existed, is dishonest.

View on HN

This is just another example of the American political discourse. You have two sides that don't even accept the same facts or reality. Most people don't bother to understand the issues but still passionately defend the talking points of "their side". See climate change or health care or guns. Impossible to have any kind of discussion.

> You have two sides that don't even accept the same facts or reality.

That is equivocation.

Not sure I understand what you are saying.

Perhaps they meant false equivalence? Although it’s not quite that either.

Thanks, I used this opportunity to actually look up equivocation and it wasn't quite what I meant. I'm not sure what the exact word should be. False equivalence is close.

My point is that while they disagree, these two sides are not equivalent in their approach to logic and fact. They are only being made to seem equivalent.

I mean, if one side is accepting reality and the other delusional, that statement holds. I don't think the grandparent was implying both sides held incompatible delusional ideas.

I meant that most people don't bother understanding issues but just vigorously repeat talking from points from "their side".

Media companies have a comfortable, decades-long business relationship with cable companies.

Well, big media outlets kind of have an incentive to destroy the internet.

This article is on The Verge, which is probably interested in the net staying around.

What do you mean by "interested in the net staying around"?

What makes you think that the verge is interested in that?

Does the verge support censoring certain opinions on the internet? If so, which ones?

> What do you mean by "interested in the net staying around"? > What makes you think that the verge is interested in that?

I'd guess because they make their money by having a presence on the Internet. If it went away, or became unviable, their business might fold.

> Does the verge support censoring certain opinions on the internet? If so, which ones?

I don't know, but I don't see how this is relevant?

The Verge isn't a big media outlet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com