FCC Chairman Still Receiving Threats | Hacker News Reader

FCC Chairman Still Receiving Threats

wsj.com

12 pointstomohawk22 comments

Should I believe him? I'm not sure. He has done nothing to stop the rampant identity theft and fake comments on the FCC's website. He has lied repeatedly in public. He clearly has no problem with lying for political gain, and playing the victim to make net neutrality supporters look deranged would clearly be to his benefit.

I don't doubt he's received death threats. A lot of people hate him and I'm sure some of them would threaten him. But does he actually fear for his life? Maybe, but I won't take his word for it.

And the article is ridiculous. I won't hold that against Pai because he didn't write it, but it's sure not doing him any favors.

Let's not forget about him lying about the "DDoS"[1] that happened during the comment period for Net Neutrality as well.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/ajit-pais-fcc-li...

When he so openly and brazenly ignored the results of the American People's overwhelming, bipartisan support for Net Neutrality in the repeal's request for comment, you can't exactly be shocked that some citizens might be upset. He's not exactly a hallmark example of being beholden to his constituents.

That may be, but legislation didn't pass in one of the houses, and he doesn't deserve death threats. Nobody who isn't actively being violent deserves them.

Woah. Haven't read the Wall St. journal in a while. Had no idea it had become so fact-free and one sided. That basically read like a Fox News bulletin

*Just noticed it was on the opinion page, thankfully. But still.

Do the other news sources you use explain the disadvantages of net neutrality or alternatives that could provide better results? If they present it in only positive light, then they're one-sided too, you just don't notice because it' the side you're already on. Even calling government regulation of the internet "neutrality" is biased.

Any societal debate is actually a long term conversation that plays out over months and years, and in this case decades. It is incumbent on all parties to at least respect the history of the debate and not just make up their own rules and facts on any given day. Any news or other organization that do not present it in a positive light are just blantantly ignoring that history, and disrespecting the people and citizens who actually adhere to the principles of reason and evicdence. It flies in the face of everything we are supposed to stand for.

I thought one of America's principles was having a free market. Net neutrality goes against that, no matter how many years of building support it's gained. What if a better solution would be something like New Zealand has where the owners of the physical cables to end customers are required to make them available to competitors so that the ISPs are numerous and competitive but all sharing the same cables. That eliminates the need for net neutrality. However, it does kind of just push the competition problem back to the cables themselves but that seems to be a simpler problem and the government has stepped in and said "let's give everyone fiber to the door".

It is owned by Murdoch.

The columnist is actually a Fox news commentator.

This is reality of today's America - death threats against those you disagree with.

The person!=policy. We may dislike Pai, but he's merely a pawn in a bigger game of chess. Frankly, I don't think he has the option of not playing

That seems rather rule lawyery. People in power can completely destroy your life without being "violent". The US was founded on revolt against a government that was being completely legal, so it's not like we can even try and take a moral high ground

The people getting death threats are not necessarily every member of Trump's cabinet. Primarily they are:

- Ajit Pai

- Betsy DeVos

- Scott Pruitt

As far as the first two go, these are not simply people with whom those who make death threats disagree. These are individuals with the unchallenged power to ruin people's lives. People with student loans who have been working for years in low-paying nonprofit or government service jobs under the assumption that their loans may be forgiven are suddenly being told by Betsy DeVos that, nah, we're not going to honor our end of the deal anymore. That can be financially crippling, for life.

The internet is a way of life and a necessity for many people in the US. The thought that Pai might cripple the average American's access to it is also an assault on that way of life, if not their livelihood itself.

That's why death threats happen. I don't condone them, but you should understand what motivates them. No one likes Rick Perry either, but as far as I know he's not getting death threats or requires a 24-hour security detail, because he's not making decisions that actively threaten people's financial future or livelihoods.

Out of curiosity, where did the idea of student debts being likely to be forgiven come from? AFAIK, the students loan were specifically designed to not be easily shed; point in case, they don't get discharged through personal bankruptcy.

It's referring to Public Service Loan Forgiveness, which after ten years of payments while employed in government or other specific jobs loans the remainder of your loans can be forgiven.

A House bill proposed getting rid of it. I'm not sure tbh how that implicates DeVos or what the current status is.

https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancell...

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/06/house-gop-bill-could-elimina...

Devos supports removal of the program and was likely instrumental in some of the other modifications to education funding from the recent tax reform: https://www.studentdebtrelief.us/forgiveness/trump-student-l...

There's a government program that forgives federal student loans if you work for long enough in the public sector or for a nonprofit: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancell...

The idea is to incentivize work that isn't always profitable but needs to get done- teaching and social work, for example.

>they don't get discharged through personal bankruptcy

My understanding as to why this happened is that some people basically did the following:

1) Get expensive, hard-to-earn degree in lucrative field (e.g. MD, PhD) 2) Declare bankruptcy prior to working 3) Immediately start work and cash out

The person is also despicable though, so what then? I’m not supporting death threats, but he’s still a thoroughly objectionable human. He’s a twitchy, dishonest shill for the most loathed companies in the country, and he used to work for them. As a bonus he’s unapologetically the face of a policy designed to help his previous (doubtless future) employers at the direct cost of the rest of us. Death threats are a non-starter, but I understand the frustration and rage.

Awesome doublespeak byline. "As Ajit Pai liberates the Internet"

should be followed by "and gifts it to his corporate overlords"

It's on the opinion page, which is where such statements belong.

Don't take that as my agreeing with it, though.

I don't condone violent threats against folks like this, but his decision is a threat to hundreds of millions of Americans, so I can't say I am surprised he is going through this.

Redirect link: https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/article...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com