[warent]

I was under the impression that the majority voice in this argument (i.e. mortal American citizens) was completely against this. Yet it still ended up that they dismantled net neutrality.

If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored? Maybe I'm missing something but this seems like a good example that our voice in the US doesn't matter beyond local things like whether or not your town will allocate money towards a new public swimming pool.

Go vote on whether or not you get a nice new swimming pool. The monopolists are the only ones that have a voice in grown-up topics. That's what I'm gathering from this. Accurate or alarmist nonsense?

[dragonwriter]

> If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored?

Because the majority (at least, as weighted for electoral influence in both political branches of government) has prioritized other things in voting for representatives. Legislation, whether direct votes or through representatives, involves not only opinions on particular questions, but opinions on the relative priority of questions, which effects how questions are aggregated and how those aggregated questions are answered.

The majority wants net neutrality, sure, but continuously says (by voting) that they care about it much less than they care about other things, and that they are willing to sacrifice NN tomget those other things.

[ZeroGravitas]

I don't think there's any basis to say the majority voted for other things over net-neutrality. The Republicans mostly hold power with minority votes.

In generaly, the things that the majority want don't get enacted under the US system e.g. the tax bill with very low approval, so net neutrality falls into the general bucket of stuff that the majority want but that the Republicans don't want to them have.

[dragonwriter]

> I don't think there's any basis to say the majority voted for other things over net-neutrality

An absolute majority of voters casting ballots for the House of Representatives in 2016 voted for either Republican or Libertarian candidates, both parties opposed to the FCC regulating for net neutrality and Congress legislating in favor of net neutrality.

It's a little less clear in the Presidential election, in part because you have to go beyond the top four candidates tomget a majority on either side, and detailed information on minor (often no-party) candidate positions on the issue can be hard to find.

And the Senate requires aggregating across different election years.

[simplify]

> If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored?

Because the FCC isn't accountable to the public, majority or not. If a majority protest was directed at a congress person, you can be sure they would listen – we're the ones who vote them in/out. And that's exactly what we're going to do to get NN enacted as law.

[kelnos]

The FCC is effectively controlled by 3 Republican appointees[1] who aren't accountable to anyone by Trump. They do not care about the will of the people. Pai is a former telecom exec and his only concern is lining the pockets of his cronies with more cash.

[1] Yes, I know Pai was appointed by Obama, on Mitch McConnell's advice. That's how these things work: 5 members, split between the two parties, with the incumbent administration's party getting the extra seat.