This part really stood out to me and I don't fully understand how it can occur.
Would the government (or rather its citizens) be better off if permanently banning future legislation wasn't allowed? Is there any case in which a permanent ban on future legislation would be, or has been, productive or reasonable?
edit: distinguishing between constitutionally-enacted and simply legislator-enacted bans on future legislation.. If this ban is supposed to be based on unconstitutionality, how would it be spun in such a way?
But federal administrative regulations aren't legislation created by congress. They are rule created by agencies. However, the agency must be granted that power by congress specifically.
The FCC can make rules about telecommunication because congress gave them the power to regulate telecommunications and it gave them guidelines for the type of rules they can make. This proposed change would edit the scope of the agencies authority.
You'd like to think that, but then you discover the Congressional Review Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act. 'Once a rule is thus repealed, the CRA also prohibits the reissuing of the rule in substantially the same form or the issuing of a new rule that is substantially the same, "unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule" (5 U.S. Code § 801(b)(2)). Congress has a window of time lasting 60 legislative days (i.e., days that the U.S. Congress is actually in session, rather than calendar days) to disapprove of any given rule; otherwise the rule will go into effect at the end of this period.'
It had been used once prior to this administration/ Congress.
Not to be pedantic, but the US Constitution contains a few pretty big permanent bans on future legislation. Government limiting governments power is a hallmark of the American system.
It seems like those bans on future legislation can be traced back to fundamental parts of the Constitution, though, right? Parts that aim to protect the citizenry.
The constitution is also supposed to be the highest power in the land, however these are simply legislators banning future legislators.
This is, of course, aside from the question of whether a particular legislative limit on rulemaking is desirable or not.
A couple people mentioned the Constitution. It can be modified. The modifications can be taken out (see Prohibition in the US).
It regularly does, but such bans have no force beyond that of tradition.
Mostly, I'm EFF's International Director, but as of yesterday, I've taken a temporary secondment to work for six months with our development (read: fundraising) team.
We're facing a number of challenges on many fronts, and like many of our colleagues in the non-profit world right now, we're having to ramp up quickly to face them.
We get a huge amount of expert advice and moral support from technologists here on Hacker News, but we only really ever chip in with the occasional technical comment.
For the next six months at least I'd be delighted to talk with anyone who is as interested in supporting us financially, or understanding better how that works. You can mail me on email@example.com or comment here.
This is a bit of an experiment for me (I'm more comfortable talking about global censorship and surveillance than asking people for a few bitcoins), as well as for EFF. To keep with the mod rules here, it's probably worth trying to keep on-topic to this post, but happy to chat offline or arrange or more general conversation.
Am I reading the situation correctly? If so, do you guys have plans to shift strategy given the direction of Congress today?
For our strategy shift, I'd read our 100 day plan here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/our-100-day-plan , especially point 7, which is about our D.C. ground game.
We have a domestic legislative team (led by Ernesto Falcon, PK's former VP of government affairs https://www.eff.org/about/staff/ernesto-omar-falcon ). It's not something that we talk about a lot, because the work tends to be in the weeds, doing line-by-line critiques of new laws, or talking to dedicated staffers. We try and do deep dives about our legislative work in EFFector when we can, but mostly people here about our big activism or tech pushes.
One of the aspects of how Congress is directed at the moment is that direct lobbying for civil liberties within Congress may be a bit of a limited strategy (something we're familiar with from previous times in our existence). In those situations, we think it's equally important to equally emphasize the alternative strategies -- fight executive overreach and unconstitutional law in the courts, create technology to protect users, and work on legal protections at the state and international level. D.C. lobbying is part of that (and we've been thinking more seriously about other ways to build that up which I'd be happy to brainstorm with you), but we think these days it works best if you integrate it with other strategies. The power of being a D.C. insider isn't as great as it has been these days, and the strength of advocacy, court challenges, and tech is showing itself right now. - d.
The oligarchy has taken over every form of media communication throughout history. The printing press, the telegraph, the radio, the television. The internet by design was resistent to centralization, the main method used on the other mediums, but the oligarchy fought a small fight in the form of the 90's cryptowars and then sorta let up. They recognize now though, that the last bastion of true, anarchistic freedom of thought is the internet, and globally will begin to attack it through many means, not just legislative.
Decentralization avoiding targeting in an age of mass surveillance is difficult, and this move towards centralization undermines the entire original purpose of the internet as a form of communication that could survive targeting. If we remember this, and build open source, encrypted, decentralized systems, we still might have a chance to keep the internet us older geeks remember.
I also have a theory that it is the technology of the internet that has artificially accelerated the oligarchy's attack time frame, because they are desperate to not let the cat out of the bag. Once the world gets a taste of intellectual freedom, they won't want to go back, and the cat is out of the bag so to speak. This is forcing their hand early and is a weakness.
I.e. the usual tragedy of the commons. Things were all fun when they were irrelevant. Then the Internet started to matter, and the exploiters came, fucking everything up.
if you think they arent organizing to protect their interests and expand their political influence, that honestly comes across as naive with the information available today.
Real life isn't a movie. Move on.
A) The only media concentration chart depicted was largely centered on television-heavy media conglomerates... so no mention of newspaper-heavy conglomerates like Gannett and McClatchy. Food and banking are not quite related to this discussion.
B) The television-heavy media conglomerates depicted were very United States-centric. So no mention of (as an example) Bertelsmann. (Internationally, you'll also find many state-sponsored media outlets... not sure how those should be represented here).
One other counterpoint: there is a bit of a trend towards greater ownership diversity (of a sort) in the newspaper market, at least in the United States. Individual businessmen have snapped up several papers in the last few years (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/rieder/2013/08...), ala Bezos famously buying the Washington Post.
>irrefutable proof of an organized conspiracy to go all "1984" on the internet? Real life isn't a movie.
So yes, the cat got out of the bag. But not out of the prison. There is no real freedom using smartphones, and now PCs are becoming more and more like smartphones. The Internet is a morass of nested panopticons.
Anyway, hand wringing about FCC etc policy seems silly. Even if it does materially affect privacy for US citizens, it's irrelevant to everyone else. What we need are better approaches for individuals and groups to guarantee their own privacy.
Also, it was not "one big change." It happened over frog-boiling years.
I also noticed the ranting tone of the EFF article describing congressional overview in strange terms (Congress making it illegal for the federal government to ever go against them - having final say on laws of kind of Congress's job, not agencies).
While I might disagree with some actions, others that seem to raise heart rates I'm not that concerned about. I'm 40 so maybe my days of over reacting are over? I work in finance so maybe my perception has changed? I generally tend to prefer less regulation as I get older (I campaigned for Greens in college)?
Count me out of the daily outrage and revolution. I'm going to take nap and get the kids off my lawn.
Books are centralised... how? People self-publish left, right, and centre to this day. And you don't need "other people's pipes" to self-publish either, whereas the internet, by definition, is other people's pipes (the 'inter' bit).
> the entire original purpose of the internet as a form of communication that could survive targeting
The original purpose of the internet was maintaining military comms, not civilian. The network itself was meant to be decentralised, but the controlling entity couldn't have been more centralised.
The end of net neutrality is a serious issue, but we shouldn't be rewriting history to make our points.
When a book is published, it is one source producing static information for many readers. One to many. Producer -> Consumer(s). To create a book before the internet you had to be in the central location of the working copy. For more detailed historical analysis of how the printing press created highly centralized societies, check out The Gutenberg Galaxy by Marshall McLuhan.
On the contrary, with the internet, many people are producing and consuming dynamic content simultaneously with many people who are doing the same. Many to many. Prosumer <-> Prosumer. Think of a Google Doc where anyone located anywhere across the globe can simultaneously collaborate on a Google Doc.
One of the earliest centralized societies (cities) was Sumer, where we also see one of the first well established written languages (the written word being a centralizing medium) and also one of the first well established centers of agricultural production.
Monsanto's dominance is in seed supply to agricultural producers, not agricultural production itself.
Now, in the absence of effective regulatory intervention, there's a risk of a monopoly in one market being leveraged to other markets, and moving up or down the production chain is one of the most common ways that happens, but, there's still (even in the absence of effective regulatory intervention) a difference between a monopoly in market X and one in market Y that threatens to be extended to X.
I'm sorry, what? This makes no sense, sounds like a platitude.
So many questions:
1) Why would you loose posibility to communicate effectively with them? You can still choose to communicate, just at a different level of discourcs or applealing to different talking points than before. Actually, as soon you realise someone is stupid, if you're intelligent enough, you should be able to communicate MORE eaffectively, vecause you know your conversation partner more.
2) They could actually be stupid. There are stupid people on this earth, you know. Not that they're wrthless as a person, or anything, it's just that they don't have the processing power to keep up with certain concepts. And that's fine and normal, such people exist.
Riffing from Vinge's True Names, I've off-and-on wondered about mixnets as covert-channel overlays on high-definition video traffic. Given ~1% signal/carrier, you would pretty much be limited to text and small images.
The ideas are so prevalent in the public imagination now, that I can't imagine shutting things down would lead to anything other than innovation in the face of it.
Edit: I'm reminded of Hyperboria and cjdns.[0,1] Arguably how IPv6 should work.
See also https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/3.7.16-_multi-...
1. It attempts to simultaneously argue that ISPs don't need additional regulation and oversight, but also that the FCC's rules are bad because they supposedly prevent additional oversight from the FTC.
2. It attempts to equate ISPs with other kinds of tech companies, particularly website operators. It then argues that a pillar of the current web is offering free or discounted services in return for targeted advertisements, and that it is unfair to restrict ISPs ability to do this when websites are allowed to do this and consumers clearly favor this tradeoff. (Also simultaneously arguing that ISPs haven't done much throttling/targeting yet, so allowing them to do so is not a problem.)
This is a dangerously disengenous comparison, as my ISP controls all websites that I visit and has the power to e.g. throttle any video service that I attempt to access besides its own, while YouTube has no control over my connection to a competitor's video service.
I have a number of smaller problems with the article, but those are my major ones.
The letter advances the same arguments and they have the same faults.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic
Without knowing entirely what they're referencing, I would say that we need to make sure broadband providers respect consumer privacy, regardless of what "other members of the internet ecosystem" are doing.
> Consumers enjoy the advertising-supported internet and innovation...
I'd much rather have the predominant funding model be similar to services like patreon. Netflix has shown that you don't need ads, ads everywhere to produce quality media in this age, just as premium cable did in the past. I'd rather have a few channels or sites of quality than hundreds of pieces of crap
> I'd rather have a few channels or sites of quality than hundreds of pieces of crap
That tends to be what someone who has a world view of "what's in it for me", vs. "what's best for everyone". The stronger the sense of "me", the stronger the sense of having to protect yourself, whereas the opposite view tends not to bring about that neurosiss.
But they're more than happy to tell gay people not to marry, women not to get abortions, transgender people not to use the bathroom and marijuana users not to smoke. Let's not pretend Republicans or Democrats are some paragon of freedom. Both want to restrict the actions of others, just to different ends.
1. This action
2. The content of this action is bad for people
3. Supporting something bad for certain people implies you hate those people
4. People supporting this action know this action is bad for people
5. Republican representatives in general support this action
I don't think any of the subsequent points are certain.
For the second part:
1. This action
2. The contents of this action benefit corporations at the expense of real people
3. People supporting this action know it does that
4. Republican representatives in general support this action
The same here.
Please don't post partisan rants here or break the HN guideline against name-calling.