[rhino369]

>They are un-interested in any semblance of reasonable governance, it's siphoning your money to their backers in the most direct and aggressive fashion, plain and simple.

They are uninterested in your view of reasonable governance. Reasonable people can and do disagree with things like net neutrality.

[tw04]

>They are uninterested in your view of reasonable governance. Reasonable people can and do disagree with things like net neutrality.

Really? On what grounds? Because I've literally not run into a single person, democrat or republican, who thinks net neutrality should go away.

*Mind you, I'm not personally friends with any executives from one of the big 8 companies that stand to benefit from it... but outside of them and shareholders I'm struggling to come up with the "reasonable" person who thinks this will be a good thing.

[khedoros1]

> Because I've literally not run into a single person, democrat or republican, who thinks net neutrality should go away.

My father. In his opinion, businesses should be allowed to manage themselves as they see fit, without outside interference.

Various people I've had 1-on-1 conversations with online. Often some variation on the regulations being difficult to enforce, and pointless because companies weren't doing things that were that bad before net neutrality anyhow.

We could debate the extent to which they were "reasonable" people, but I think that their opinions were reasoned out. They just started from assumptions that I disagree with.

[tw04]

>My father. In his opinion, businesses should be allowed to manage themselves as they see fit, without outside interference.

So consumers are just at the mercy of the corporate monopolies then? I'm curious how he expects a democracy to survive in the face of monopolies owning the media and controlling our "free" press. History has shown that's basically impossible, but I assume he's got a solution given you've said he's reasonable.

>Various people I've had 1-on-1 conversations with online. Often some variation on the regulations being difficult to enforce, and pointless because companies weren't doing things that were that bad before net neutrality anyhow

Then they haven't bothered to do basic research. It isn't hard to enforce and there was a framework in place already.

[khedoros1]

The argument I'd expect him to make: You're making the assumption that monopolies are inherently bad, and that alternatives wouldn't spring up out of the American spirit of entrepreneurship if they were actually required. Clearly, alternatives haven't arisen because we're doing well enough with what we have. Oh, the government grants exclusive franchise to specific companies? Just another example of the evils of government interference in the market.

[tw04]

I mean... In my lifetime we have had literally this exact thing. AT&T was a monopoly. It was inherently bad for literally everyone that wasn't employed by AT&T, and even most of them. The government didn't grant them exclusive rights, but they did step in to fix the situation. Assuming he doesn't have Alzheimers (literally), that would be a really, really bad argument given we've lived it and seen the results.

[khedoros1]

No idea how he'd connect it to the Bells. He's not an easy person to discuss politics with.

[banku_brougham]

I’m making an inference here: you consider the current state of affairs to be reasonable governance.