[awalton]

> This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level.

Shame, because this vote is incredibly predictable by anyone who has been paying any attention at all. Republicans are on the bullet train to dismantle and sell off the government to the highest bidders. This vote goes straight down party lines.

But, it'll be an easy banner for Dems to hoist in November to rally voters, since it's categorical that Americans do not want this madness from the FCC to continue.

[renlo]

I thought that was the point the article was positing; it's a symbolic vote to get Republicans on the record for their support of an unpopular position.

[Steltek]

I think what people fail to realize is that it's not unpopular enough and not with the right people. For the GOP base, they may disagree wholeheartedly but what are they going to do? Vote for a abortionist gun-grabbing Democrat?

For Dems, the best use of these things is barrage the election cycle with negative news about the GOP. Failed policies, bad ideas, myopic leadership. Bad bad bad bad. Suck the energy right out the way the Clinton investigation did in 2016.

[dragonwriter]

Reducing enthusiasm in the opposing party’s base is a key tactic in US elections, which are won at least as much by turnout of reliable votes as turning swing votes, however much the media prefers the swing voter narrative.

[oceanstone]

You didn't mention the largest voting block, voters who don't strongly identify with either party.

[viridian]

Unfortunately that voting block doesn't line up with reality, as least from the stats I know for the presidential elections. A given voter that voted for party X's candidate four years ago, if they vote again, will vote for party X's candidate about 92% of the time. This means that in the pool of 'likely voters', the two parties are realistically fighting over 8% of hearts and minds.

[ajmurmann]

There is another caveat: 8% in ~12 states.

Greatest democracy in the world!

[netheril96]

Swing states, where the votes matter the most, have been won by less margins.

[lurr]

Then why didn't clinton win easily?

[specialist]

HRC got nearly 3m more votes. That ain't nothing.

[dragonwriter]

Voters who claim not to strongly identify with either party vote as consistently with one party as voters who do strongly identify with a party, at least, from research I saw several years back.

[specialist]

The largest voting block are the people who don't.

[lurr]

It's something to use for undecided voters and something to rile up the democratic base.

[philovivero]

Also, everyone to the right of Antifa have been told Net Neutrality was disguised legislation to censor conservative opinions.

Given how completely Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al censor right-leaning political opinions, and they're big pro-NN orgs, it wasn't a hard sell.

Unfortunately, NN has become yet another casualty in these weird post-fact times.

[abiox]

> Given how completely Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al censor right-leaning political opinions

for "completely" doing such, they're doing a terrible job.

[lurr]

> Given how completely Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al censor right-leaning political opinions

Right-leaning opinions which violate their TOS.

big difference. I'm pro merit based immigration and feel entirely comfortable tweeting that (if I had a twitter, never saw the point).

[wooter]

weird post fact times? heres a CMU taught, Cambridge written paper that concludes:

"we never had network neutrality in the past, and I do not believe we should engineer for it in the future either."

Its the exact condescension and willful ignorance of intelligent opposition in this thread that so characterizes the left.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~srini/15-744/papers/p49-crowcroft.pdf

[dragonwriter]

We've had net neutrality as official FCC policy with different enforcement mechanisms from 2005 until 2017. Being “CMU taught, Cambridge written” apparently doesn't stop the paper from being blatantly wrong and simple, easily verifiable facts.

[wooter]

Absolute nonsense. What mechanisms? The cases of fraud or misrepresentation are just that. Not preemptive regulation like NN.

[sumedh]

> since it's categorical that Americans do not want this madness

As an outsider it is kind of amusing when I see lines like "Americans do not want" said by both Democrats and Republicans.

[comicjk]

Often these statements are carefully phrased to be correct. For instance, most Americans want to "protect gun rights", and also have "common sense gun laws". These two slogans don't conflict, but the politicians who push them clearly do.

In the case of Net Neutrality, a survey which started by giving people pros and cons of net neutrality found 83% support for it, while another which phrased it as "government regulation" found over 50% opposed.

I would call this a good argument against government by referendum.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...

[mrguyorama]

I find it a good argument for increasing education funding, especially in the non-STEM fields

[awalton]

Luckily in this case I can point to the data the FCC collected themselves. After it's been denoised/despammed, it's almost unitary that legitimate comments supported net neutrality.

Of course, the FCC was very quick to completely dismiss the entire data set, and didn't even refer to it in their final decision because it was so filled with bots spamming the list with identical submissions from dead people and even apparently Barack Obama - the very person who asked the FCC to take the strong stance in the first place. But, who would have expected any different from a government this steeped in corruption and controversy.

It's okay though. You're an outsider. You can easily miss the nuance of this conversation as it's played out on Hacker News literally every single working day.

[int_19h]

It's a good rule of thumb that whenever you hear someone starting the phrase with "The American people want ...", you can basically ignore the rest of it, because it's meaningless propaganda drivel.

[matte_black]

This is an easy opportunity for Republicans to show they can be bipartisan without actually risking much, given the widespread support there is for Net Neutrality. Later they can attack Democrats for not being more bipartisan on one of their issues.

[JauntyHatAngle]

>This is an easy opportunity for Republicans to show they can be bipartisan without actually risking much

Except this matters to their donors, and falls in line with the political ideology of current republicans, so why would they go against it?

[pdonis]

> Republicans are on the bullet train to dismantle and sell off the government to the highest bidders.

This is equally true of the Democrats; they just have a different set of preferred highest bidders.

[untog]

No it is not.

Republicans are far more dedicated to the task of destroying government than Democrats are. I agree that some Democratic senators have historically been pretty shitty on the topic of net neutrality but this false equivalence nonsense needs to stop. Republicans will sell off national parks, shut down the EPA and FDA and shut down any banking regulation you put in front of them.

[meddlepal]

I agree that some Republican senators have historically been pretty shitty on the topic of FDA, EPA and banking regulation but this false narrative of all Republicans are evil needs to stop.

[awalton]

> this false narrative of all Republicans are evil needs to stop.

Then perhaps they should stop being evil.

Republicans should fight the evil within their own party and drive it out. They should ask for the resignation of abusers, and voters should fire the ones that don't resign. Republicans shouldn't throw money behind suspected child molesters. Republicans shouldn't rescind laws that the vast majority of Americans want because Verizon and Comcast filled their coffers. Republicans shouldn't attack various races, religions, and immigrants, and should condemn anyone who does. Republicans should come out strongly against Neo-Nazis rallying and using their political party as a facade. Republicans should stop fighting so hard to stop voters from voting - removing registered voters, gerrymandering and voter suppression laws are categorically anti-American practices and need to stop. Republicans should want to work with the Democrats to come to a healthcare agreement everyone can live with, if they truly find the ACA so reprehensible despite amending over a hundred times and then voting for it.

Once the Republicans start acting like a conservative party and not an extremist organization, then maybe we can change the tone of the conversation back to "reaching across the aisle" and being friends despite not agreeing on the tax brackets or which companies get which subsidies.

But sadly that's not the state of political discourse in this country in 2018. The "Good" Republicans need to make their voices heard above the wailing of the lunatics currently running the asylum. The "Evil" Republicans need to be removed from office. And we need strong assurances that our democracy won't ever crumble like this again.

[meddlepal]

Framing it as "Good" vs "Evil" is half the problem. The real issue is a lot of the left have assigned morality to policy decisions and concepts about how government should work. You may strongly disagree with scaling back the EPA, FDA, banking regulation, Net Neutrality and who knows what other regulations but that does not scaling or removing regulation evil.

The rhetoric from the left that any disagreement with the left is "evil" is a really sad development for the United States and democracy. It has a chilling effect on any kind of debate once you brand your opponents as "evil".

[lurr]

Okay, how about shortsighted, stupid, corrupt, etc...?

This also sounds like an argument for political correctness.

[untog]

Your comparison doesn't even work. Some Democratic senators have been weak on net neutrality, but a Democratic administration enacted the common carrier rules we are now losing. That is to say, while the senators were not perfect, the party still made the better choice.

None of this applies to the Republicans and the EPA, banking regulation etc.

[cmurf]

Republicans run on a blatant platform of "wealth inequality is not only fine, we're happy to intentionally make it worse with tax policy". History has proven this to be deeply destabilizing over time, and so it's not unreasonable to maintain simplistic name calling.

[awalton]

[citation needed].

You're going to need some high octane evidence to compare adding new regulations that disproportionally help one industry, verses destroying the established works of the FCC, EPA, NOAA, the Bureau of Land Management/National Parks, the Department of Education... the list is literally too long for me to keep enumerating here, so take a look at articles like this one: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/05/23/here-li...

I understand being upset at the Dems for stuff like the TPP, basically rolling over to Hollywood any time they ask for a copyright extension or more copyright enforcement powers, or even being soft on enforcement of any given regulation... but in general there's one party in America that wants regulation and structure and enforcement of existing laws... and one party in America that's currently actively working to remove as many government agencies and regulations that exist to protect the nation from Captialism Gone Wild, and as a staunch independent it's quite easy to see the difference.

I'm sorry, but this shit needs to end. This statement might have been closer to true in the earlier 2000's, but it couldn't be further from the truth in 2018. This "both sides" equivocation needs to be put to death.

[pdonis]

> I understand being upset at the Dems for stuff like the TPP, basically rolling over to Hollywood any time they ask for a copyright extension or more copyright enforcement powers

I am, but those are relatively minor compared to the real issue, which you are ignoring.

> or even being soft on enforcement of any given regulation

You appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that regulations in general are good, and the only issue is proper enforcement. But that's the real issue: regulations in general are not good. One obvious reason is regulatory capture: regulations end up benefiting the industries being regulated, not the public as a whole. The history of regulation of the Internet is a good example: we don't have the current dysfunctional structure of huge ISPs with monopoly powers and no easy way to dislodge them because of lack of regulation, we have it because of too much regulation, bought and paid for by those same ISPs to insulate them from actual competition.

I understand that we can't just dismantle the existing regulatory structure cold turkey, because, for better or worse, it's the status quo and everyone has made long term plans in good faith based on it. In that sense, the agenda Trump is currently pushing is not a good idea. But that does not mean that pushing for less regulation over the long term, and more recognition of the limits of government regulation as a tool for social improvement, is not a good idea. Unfortunately I don't see either major party in the US recognizing this (or, for that matter, any major party in any developed country). The Republicans are pushing to repeal regulations they don't like, but they will gladly put in place other regulations that they do like--for example, the various travel bans and restrictions that everyone was up in arms about early in the Trump administration, or laws like the Defense of Marriage Act, or...you get the idea.

[root_axis]

I feel like our entire mechanism of discourse on this topic is broken. It is not useful to regard regulations in general terms because the factors that underpin whether or not a regulation is good or bad is entirely dependent on the details of the regulation and the context in which it is applied.

> But that's the real issue: regulations in general are not good

This is akin to saying "laws in general are not good", when they are simply a tool. Of course, overzealous regulation is a stifling obstacle for small businesses, but this is something we can all agree on, the disagreements always come down to the details.

> regulatory capture: regulations end up benefiting the industries being regulated

Yes, this is a negative side effect of regulation, but there are also positive side effects from regulation and we have to evaluate the spread on a case by case basis (or at the very least, differentiate the ramifications of specific kinds of regulations per a given industry). At the end of the day, regulations are society's response to a sordid and well-documented history of abuse by corporations; that doesn't mean regulations should be punitive, but they are a necessary tool.