Hacker News Reader

Comment by narrator | Hacker News Reader

The whole Web showed up for net neutrality and this bill was completely ignored until they took down Craigslist personals. What the hell happened?

View on HN

I don't now, but I suspect that it may partially be Compassion Fatigue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue

They added "sex" to the title of the bill. I knew this would pass the first time I heard of it when they were discussing it as a separate bill. Stopping people from having sex is clearly high on the agenda for both parties as is getting information without a warrant.

everyone that I know in tech that was involved in this one, with half a brain, just walked out of discussions. left was the corrupt, lobbists and idiots-puppets-think-of-the-children.

really, early on nobody thought this could ever be taken seriously. guess engineers suck at politics. (still have to see what the lawyers that were involved are saying now).

I never heard of this bill until after it was passed. Feels like more could have been done if this publicity had come earlier.

Every time there is an unpopular bill they cannot get passed but their financial backers do shit like this happens. They keep trying to pass variations of it in various shady ways until compassion fatigue sets in.

Is it compassion fatigue if the law was written and passed in near total secret and at a fast pace?

They tried that trick before but I suppose you can argue its not.

It’s what they did this time.

And multiple previous times. This isn't the first time stuff like this has been amended to an unrelated bill.

You have a group of people and organizations who are paid very well to make this crap their job.

In significant part, they're being paid by many of us (using revenue generated from us) who are opposed to what they are doing but held hostage -- or quasi-extorted -- by oligopoly.

People's individual efforts -- just to keep up with the news and endless initiatives, much less continue to actively respond to them in effective fashions -- tire out.

Want it to end? Then you need to put the people behind these things -- commercial and political -- out of business.

But they fight us on that, too. No municipal broadband for you! Years of wrangling with Google Fiber (who arguably could go bad at any time, themselves) over pole access. Etc.

Musk's nascent satellite network is in the news, currently. Who's going to control that, and what agendas will they bring with them?

It's because most of the left shuts down critical thinking if you say a bill is for ending sex trafficking. It ends their ability to think rationally or challenge the rest of it. It's the reason politicians use the: "it's for the children," bullshit - it ends debate & challenges. That same contingent, mostly the left, were the ones protesting ending net neutrality.

You had the NY Times and Washington Post both supporting the Cloud Act as a good idea, by pushing pro opinion pieces.

Just like the right goes crazy when using "but muh freedom", or "they want to take your guns".

Don’t get them started!

At first I felt insulted for implying the left is easy to manipulated, but then I realized I'd be more insulted if I was in the right wing because you imply the right-wing doesn't care about the sexual molestation and exploitation of children nearly as much.

The same thing that happens any time the oligarchy wants legislation... they just took the losses and kept trying until one time we weren't paying attention. I have seen this coming for a while now. Once the oligarchy understood the internet is the last bastion of anarchistic fredom of thought they immediately wanted to take control over it somehow.

Also embedded in the spending bill[0] is the CLOUD Act:[1]

> The CLOUD Act (S. 2383 and H.R. 4943) has two major components. First, it empowers U.S. law enforcement to grab data stored anywhere in the world, without following foreign data privacy rules. Second, it empowers the president to unilaterally enter executive agreements with any nation on earth, even known human rights abusers. Under such executive agreements, foreign law enforcement officials could grab data stored in the United States, directly from U.S. companies, without following U.S. privacy rules like the Fourth Amendment, so long as the foreign police are not targeting a U.S. person or a person in the United States.

0) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflect...

1) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/new-backdoor-around-fo...

"unilaterally enter executive agreements with any nation on earth" good chance the SC strikes that down if it gets there.

https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/spotlight-fourth-am...

You do realize that non-U.S. persons not in the U.S. are not covered by the U.S. Constitution?

Correct. That's up to that country, if they cant handle outside influence that's bad, and they and only they can fix it. We have our own trouble with it here... I am doing everything I can to stop us from meddling in other countries, and you wont see us going to war any time soon (despite the BS media owned by the war party).

What else do you want? This law violates my 4th Amendment, and as far as that goes, it's highly likely that it gets struck down given the chance, our latest SC appointment makes that even more likely.

Maybe it would have been more clear if I had quoted the "foreign law enforcement officials could grab data stored in the United States" part.

>despite the BS media owned by the war party

Sorry, I'm from Australia and sometimes find tracking US internal nomenclature confusing. Which party is "the war party"? Both major parties seem to have been happy to support ongoing military action over the last few decades so maybe I'm missing something.

Once again, I'm legitimately asking for clarification in order to put your comment in context. No judgement!

No, you have it correct. Both major parties pretend to fight when they have the same goal (which is basically to finish the NWO project, it's a huge problem having powerful individuals, very inconvenient for the rest of the global power structures). Outliers not in the club are rare, recent examples are Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and (seriously f-ing major huge USA-saving-I'm-not-even-remotely-kidding) Donald J. Trump.

TPP/ISIS/Iran/NK these are all TLA perma-state order-out-of-chaos creations and tools. We haven't even got to the good stuff yet. A third to half of the US has no idea we just went through a soft anti-coo all the way from 2001.

Ted Cruz gets an honorable mention, Devin Nunez, Chavez, Gowdy, Grassley along with a bunch of house members, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash (sometimes... he's still learning the ropes). Worst of the worst are the crew surrounding my home state's senators of Arizona. Which is weird, people here know what's up. The 18th amendment is not a good thing. I'm leaving out a bunch if the good dems because I don't track them as closely, but that's the basics. Feinstien gets major flack (imho rightly) from the right, but she is an honest outlier too. DC is (really) a cult, but not everyone is in it.

Sorry for linking to Newt, but he explains this correctly: https://youtu.be/kkzuvte3758

If you get people a bit out of their guard they are honest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO4DuMcrVpE (I was looking for just the CM full clip, but this will do, YT is quite the memory hole, didnt check that chan, but it's _extremely_ common to poison the well by mixing something like that with flat earth or whatever turns people off. CM knows he's been played, he knows about #7 and will bring it up, he wants out.)

They have an old religion, and love to put it out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5gklIKcDg

Like any gangs, these gangs need to throw their signs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-EBGYF8XLQ (it's not monolithic, but that one is very interesting)

I'm not doing myself any favors posting this. It's so easy to set off the "CT" bells and people just tune out. Watch the vid link in my profile and read up on the disinformation page in the mediawiki link if you think it's interesting.

"You do realize that non-U.S. persons not in the U.S. are not covered by the U.S. Constitution?"

There's nothing in the US Constitution that limits it to US citizens. It has been argued that it protects everyone.

First, it empowers U.S. law enforcement to grab data stored anywhere in the world, without following foreign data privacy rules.

Spy agencies have already done this for decades with impunity and provided the data to law enforcement agencies, so this is probably just trying to provide them with legal cover.

The day I heard of it was the day it passed :/

Power wanted "net neutrality". It's a stepping stone to the same ends, more rules regulating the internet. Once you convince people it should be regulated, the sky is the limit. Standard incrementalism tactic. I mean... who likes "hate speech" anyway?

I could post a wall of similar links: http://www.businessinsider.com/sen-al-franken-calls-for-vigo...

No it’s the other way around. Net neutrality is itself a regulation. Removing the government regulation turns it into a Wild West with less rules and allows other powers to slap us around.

"Net neutrality is itself a regulation"

Correct, that's exactly what I said. NN is gov enforced regs. This thread is about bad _gov_ regulation. Companies cant make or enforce law. Gov can. Gov is therefore much more powerful, as we see here. You can leave FB, you cant leave your gov (well... easily).

From the perspective of Joe & Jane Average, there is no difference between a contract and a civil (rather than criminal) law: Break the rules you didn’t read and you get a fine you might not be able to afford.

Contracts are civil law... I'm not sure what you are getting at. What contracts are you thinking about? If you are thinking about TOS, that's not a contract. The uni-party would love to change that though. I forget which one it was... SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/CISPA/TPP etc etc. NN is civil law since it's FCC regs, but that's not all that important since large corps cant hide from the process server. They would follow it regardless or get their accounts "directed un-deposited" from eventually.

There’s a reason I wrote “From the perspective of Joe & Jane Average” rather than omitting it.

Surveys have shown some people think they have access to Facebook but not the internet. You and I know they’re wrong, but makes no difference to their experience: if they lose their Facebook account for a rules violation, they suffer for it. From their POV, Facebook rules are civil laws.

Remember that normal people record clips of their favourite shows to YouTube with descriptions like “no copyright intended”. Normal people don’t know how the law works in their own country, never mind internationally like the websites themselves. They might not know what a civil law is, but I expect they would describe categories that roughly match criminal and civil laws, and put EULAs, bank account overdraft fees, etc. into the later.

So treat them like fools? That never works. It makes them fools. I disagree with your "average Joe" assessment, it's pretty typical of the elitist mindset we technical folk seem to have a problem with. I guarantee my dead grandpa could easily understand this in heartbeat, and I know my elderly neighbor already does.

Surveys are often garbage. I would be happy to look at them, but I make good money betting against polls.

Feedback teaches, remove the feedback and... next thing you know you are arguing against free speech.

No, I propse the system is simplified. I want the legal system to be simple enough that almost everyone knows almost all of their rights and obligations. Without that, I claim that although ignorance of the law must not be an excuse, it de-facto is an excuse.

This isn’t just a problem for Joe & Jane Average, it’s a problem for The Elites, too: I asked a lawyer if anyone knew all of UK law, he just laughed. From the way they act, I don’t even have reason to believe lawmakers understand the laws they pass (for example, the Australian government accidentally made half of itself ineligible for office without noticing).

The average person might be able to understand a decent subset of the laws if they are explained to them, but firstly they are not explained, and secondly there are too many for any human to understand all of them. Most people do not read EULAs, based on how long they spend on that screen — they should be simple and clear enough that people chose to do so.

> You can leave FB, you cant leave your gov

That may not stay true forever. For what it's worth, I know more expats than people who truly left Facebook.

You can leave your government (in most places), but it involves not then sixty seconds of moving your fingers.

Not following how NN is connected then. It's good regulation. It's essentially the first amendment of the internet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com