Internal FCC Report Shows Republican Net Neutrality Narrative Is False
motherboard.vice.com
motherboard.vice.com
Putting about half of the US population in an adversarial position is not the most effective way to start a conversation that results in pro-Net-Neutrality sentiment.
This is Pai's narrative, and that of companies like Verizon and Comcast.
A more powerful pro-Net-Neutrality stance would be to frame the discussion as "we were duped by insiders and private interests," rather than "Republicans are wrong."
It is an absolutely fact based statement. Sometimes being factual will rally the side required to win the war.
This is something most Americans can be behind, regardless of party affiliation.
I thought your comment was a little troll-y, so I went to your comment history.
> NN is also good for people and also has bipartisan support (from constituents) but just got repealed.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15925416
So which is it, something Americans can support NN from both sides of the aisle, or just one side of the aisle?
I'd love to be wrong but that is exactly what happens.
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-am...
Republican lawmakers however, have overwhelmingly either not supported or stayed quiet on the issue.
https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-11-24-breaking-f...
If you don't like that, then complain to the party that keeps voting against it. Don't try to obfuscate facts.
It’s same idea as the difference between “Terrorist blows up/shoots something” versus “Christian shoots up abortion clinic” or “Muslim suicide bomber”.
Those people may be a part of particular sects but what you choose to highlight (especially in a headline) about them says a lot about you and the agenda you’re trying to push.
When it is framed as a "Republican," issue (which it certainly is), you've just lost a good chunk of the audience you are trying to convince. That is the counterproductive part.
Doubly so when one side is at odds with the other side's values. History is a good guide here: When one side is against a value system, negotiating isn't an option. Fight them.
Really? Do you not think that has been going on for the last year at least? It didn't do a lick of good either.
It's gonna take a every non-right wing Republican voter to bond together and start voting for the candidate running against the Republican regardless of how they feel about them.
Only by voting out Republicans in large numbers will they finally start paying attention to the public.
I think the liberal, progressive factions need to realize their best actions are to vote against Republicans and for whatever mainstream Democrats are running. Sorry they might not be the ideal candidate but when a party like Republicans are in power they immediately start changing the rules making it so much more difficult to get them out of office.
The design of its politics used to work. But today the dual effects of Fox News insulation, and social media polarization are running in only one direction - more polarization.
This is finally the year that the Democrats got polarized fully and started responding to the system with the levers that still work.
Unfortunately, bipartisanship is a dirty word for the republicans, due to the set up of their internal power and image dynamics. For decades now, they’ve been working on the winner take all playbook- this has bred ever more aggressive republican politicians, whose main focus is winning elections.
The younger politicians see reaching across the aisle as weakness and betrayal. The older republicans have allowed the situation to occur and now ride the tiger.
This scenario will lead to only more polarization, even within the parties themselves. Without any ability to listen to the other side, your options are reduced to “do nothing / try the same thing, but harder”.
In such a scenario having only two parties results in deadlock.
A third party would allow for cooperation, and breaking of deadlock.
I think it’s a good idea to remind republicans that their elected officials are doing things they don’t approve of. Hopefully they will put pressure on them to re-instate NN, and vote for pro-NN candidates in the future.
As long as they feed the agenda in their base's minds that voting for Republicans is voting for people like that who are against (or hate) the "other" folks then there's not much Republicans can't do to satisfy their real benefactors - rich folks and corporations.
anyone else find it ridiculous how often people try to claim the issues plaguing the US government are "by design".
it seems like it's done for almost anything. Electoral college is giving more and more power to low population states and somehow that is by design despite the house being capped for a century. political parties were warned about by some of the founding fathers, but the adversarial nature turning into an incredibly toxic environment is "by design"?
I'll agree with your second point, but not this one.
In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, one of the issues ("how to elect the president") was tasked to the "Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters", which came up with the Electoral College. The founding fathers gave the low-population states a bone in order to create something that all of the colonies/states could/would ratify.
It is affirmative action for states where few people want to live. And it was "by design" at the time of ratification of the Constitution. It was, however, designed as a compromise, as was allowance of slavery and the 3/5s of a person that each slave represented for Congressional Districts.
Do you think the "October surprise" every singe presidential election cycle is just one hell of a coincidence?
If you're going to complain about conflated numbers, then half the population (50%) shouldn't be the number you cite, but instead 18% as 82% of all voters support NN [1] based on polling.
It's not a partisan issue except for the fact that the Republican appointed FCC members are pushing this through on a party-line vote.
At some point the Republican/GOP branding has/will become synonymous with corruption and graft.
[1] http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-...
The narrriative in question is "This Republican narrative of net neutrality as an Obama-led takeover of the internet"
As someone who monitors a lot of republican, conservative, libertarian, and alt-right sources online, I personally have never encountered any anti-NN comments about an "Obama-led takeover." Many do have concerns over government takeover of the internet, but not once have I encountered someone who blamed it on Obama.
I believe most right-leaning readers will see through this hole in the article's premise.
Also, it would seem that because the point of the article's claim is largely moot, the practicality of having this OIG report made public seems pretty weak. I.e. a nothing-burger.
Note that the demographic that this article dispariages can be quite dismissive of Vice, as it's seen as a left-leaning publication.