They've set their agenda, now they're executing it. They have absolutely no plans on listening to anyone along the way. Nobody in this entire administration does.
So what matters is that we shine light on their agenda so that it is not possible for them to credibly deny they are not following their own policies.
And who is going to shine a line or report on that? The "fake news" media?
Nobody will care, they don't want to hear it and they won't believe it, cognitive dissonance is amazingly powerful.
It does not mean choosing to ignore reality or being willfully blind like you are using it here. I'm not sure how it has become popular to misuse it in that way over the last couple years, but it seems to be a thing.
(I agree "cognitive dissonance" seems to be misused lately. That's how language evolves, unfortunately. And to add to your definition, it's the stress from with holding two opposing thoughts, hence the dissonance.)
 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28conserv.html
Comments are for submitting ideas. It was never supposed to be a popular vote.
I suspect I'll be waiting a while though, since the FCC, like many of the commissions like it, were not created with the Russian coup like we're experiencing right now in mind. We can protest and gnash our teeth all we want, but very, very soon this is going to happen, and then very, very soon we're going to see companies like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast moving to marginalize our ability to communicate and use the services we want as we want, all the while maintaining they will "honor net neutrality". At that point, we can sue and start the lawsuit process... but they've got warchests tallying the billions of dollars, control and deep connections in the media to push their agenda, and lawyers enough to bury the suit for a decade and we've got... the EFF? It's the definition of a Goliath vs David battle, and it's not a swift battle to fight.
Normally we'd turn to our representatives and senators to swat down stupidity, or failing that, sue early and hope the court system figures it out... but all of those solutions require a cooperative government which we are seeing is simply not going to be the case here. Silly enough, our government has the power to choose who sues them and whether the case can proceed - all they need to do is shop for the right venue. The government is currently only listening to companies who have written them fat checks to execute on their demands, and unfortunately the will of the American people is collateral damage.
(Luckily for us, the Republicans aren't actually coordinated enough yet within their own party to really start dismantling this country, because right now they wield an unprecedented amount of power to push whatever agenda they please - if it's constitutional, they can do it, and we have next to no actual legal power to stop them, aside from an actual revolution. Perhaps the next set of people we put into power will right this incredible wrong and pass some laws or perhaps even a constitutional amendment giving the citizens of this country to override the will of the legislature or executive branch through a vote of no confidence or a recall election, or even just the ability for the citizens to pause non-essential Federal government policymaking during an active criminal investigation into the executive branch... but I'm not holding my breath on any of these happening in the next 3ish years.)
Our best bet is that maybe in 2018 enough seats flip that maybe Congress can claw back some control and stem the madness until 2020 when we can hopefully restore sanity (you know, if we can prevent external countries meddling in our election again...) but we currently have no brakes to pump, and nobody in government representing the majority of the American people when they say they want strong net neutrality backed by Title II. Making a lot of noise isn't going to solve this problem alone. Either they need to actually be stripped of power, or us citizens need to find some actual power to wield against them.
And like I said, I'm all ears on where we can get some power.
The trick is they want you to feel powerless and that nothing can be done, that it's already too late. Your original comment shows you are falling for it.
The means they are using to perform this trickery is to convince you that it is too much for any one person to make a difference. "Their minds are already made up". This kind of trickery only works on uneducated and weak people.
The blackouts worked before because they disrupted, at least a little bit, the everyday lives of important people and non-important people alike ... because a lot of people worked in concert together to be heard/noticed as one.
I'll refrain from responding to the snide remarks by rmccoy6435; suffice it to say that if there is one thing that a subreddit can do well, it's help people organize w.r.t. their constitutional right to assemble in the name of free speech and thus show strength in numbers. Losing net neutrality could theoretically take that away, too.
I stopped reading after this sentence. If you want me to listen to what you have to say (and judging by the amount of paragraphs on your post, it looks like a lot) then using political rhetoric doesn't help you at all.
I want solutions, and I'm plenty fucking tired of pointing fingers and talking about conspiracies.
Q: if public opinon would prefer to treat the internet like the internet like a utility would you vote the other way?
Pai responded with Not really an answer saying they have to look at the evidence, but his answer was no.
His solution to problems with ISPs is for consumers to complain to a regulatory agency. After taking away regulatory authority.
Yes, they will. And the final rule that is issued (and the almost inevitable dissent) will probably directly acknowledge them (though one side dismissively.)
Oh no, those pesky Russians got their hands on a public data breach dataset and are simply ripping through them and submitting the same comment over and over...
Whelp, we better acquiesce to 'their' 'demands' and do exactly what we wanted to do in the first place. How convenient all of these robots were exactly aligned with our desires!
I wonder how bad it will get before this country finally realizes its going to take more than two parties to run this country well. People are getting sick of this shit.
Since ping times from the afterlife have such bad latency, they don't mind letting ISPs get away with whatever they want.
I've worked with many regulators on industry/public reviews. Submitting opinions or copy pasta achieves nothing, no matter how voluminous. It will at best end up refered to in the final report as something like "Mupltiple unsubstantiated submissions were made supporting net neutralitity."
Things that make a difference, at least to the extent that some time and effort has to be made responding to them in the final report, include:
1. Summarising similar rulings in other jurisdictions. Ideally, including the reasoning why they made their decision, and some analysis of the impact. Comparisons of market similarities (e.g. level/structure of competition) helps to show why those decisions are relevant to the local market.
2. Arguing from local regulatory context. Working from the local competition/telecoms laws and previous decisions by the regulator, construct a structured argument why the desired outcome logically follows.
3. Arguing from first principles. Often involving some market/scenario modelling showing current market behaviour and how that would/would not change under different regulatory outcomes. Most competition/telecoms legislation is framed around benefits to consumers, so the modelling should focus on the consumer impact, not just competitor impact.
Most industry submissions will utilise a combination of the above, and draw upon global experts to strengthen their case and add credibility to their analysis.
I can't speak to the FCC and this particular ruling, but I have seen regulators change their draft recommendations on the basis of submissions received during the public review process. Even when the regulator has predetermined the outcome, having the submissions and the official responses recorded in the final report provides a reference basis for additional lobbying at a later date.
While I agree on principle, I always make exceptions for monopolies: ISPs in the US are local monopolies: they carved up the market geographically and deliberately choose not to compete.
The perverse thing is that the Republicans echo your hands-off sentiment at federal level, while Republican-ruled states are busy passing hands-on laws that ban municipal networks.
The free market ideology is based on a assumption that a actual free market exists and that assumption is false when it comes to most forms of infrastructure including Internet cables.
If that's the case, Pai's rationalization is very hand-wavy.
This is what a lot of partisan media commentary gets wrong, since they tend to focus on "So-and-so is a liberal/conservative, therefore everything they say is tainted. We can't trust anything they say!" When in reality, there are facts to be had, and you can investigate them, and ignore who is saying what. The taint argument is only a good heuristic when you're completely uneducated about a topic.
They said that it isn't fair that some companies are restricted from using your private information, but huge companies like Google, Facebook and others have free access and free reign to with it what they want. Instead of making your data private from all the companies, they instead did THE EXACT OPPOSITE and made all the private information readily available to everyone and every company who wants it.
I think it could be argued that sponsoring 3rd party services required to access Facebook under the condition they won't be used to access competing sites is a novel form of dumping. Clearly the goal is to get poor people hooked on FB before they can afford to buy actual Internet access and decide for themselves.
And suggesting that this monopolistic propaganda initiative can be called "Internet Basics" is a direct affront to the Internet itself.
If Facebook actually wanted to be neutral they would sponsor unrestricted access with small data cap. Still good enough for browsing Facebook and Wikipedia but without the vendor lock-in.
Is it possible to release technology under the GPL?
No one in my family has ever had that much. I won't, either; I'll probably die somewhat above the level of "hovel," but far below "estate." I can't find it within me to get too worked up about the Estate Tax.
But thanks for the donwvotes, sorry about the humor.
Comparing it to another popular complex learning system, neural networks, might provide insight on failure conditions.
Income taxes can be thought of as gradient regularizers.
Basically limit the amount of weights accumulated per training session (wealth per tax year). Estate taxes can be thought of as weight regularizers (that occur once per lifetime). Maybe it would be more palatable as a tax on wealth yearly.
One of the ways that networks fail (and capitalism can fail) is with extreme values on weights (wealth) on small portions of the network. There are ways to counter this on a neural network - some are heavy handed (l1, l2 regularization), but some are just clever without direct analogies (dropout, batch normalization, etc).
I wonder how the conversation would change if we had to calculate our income tax as a percentage of total wealth each tax year.
For the point of view that it's not a very good vehicle at all, it's worth reading Oscar Widle's essay The Soul of Man Under Socialism, which is free to read online (of course!)
Here's a quick excerpt:
Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of others, to stand ‘under the shelter of the wall,’ as Plato puts it, and so to realise the perfection of what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the incomparable and lasting gain of the whole world. These, however, are exceptions. The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism – are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this.
If this is interesting, Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread is also a really engaging read.
Who would have thought the first time humanity would see large scale resurrections of the dead would be so that the corpses could post internet comments about how much they hate the idea of net neutrality and show their support and love for monopolies?
Simply amazing, I knew people would be passionate about net neutrality but I wouldn't have guessed it was powerful enough to resurrect the lifeless.
Do you think they will start using this technique in medicine soon? In the ER or hospitals? Imagine the amazing sequence of events:
"We're losing him, we're losing him... he just has no more will to live"
'No wait, give me that laptop.'
"He's dead, flatlined"
'SIR, SIR, HOW MUCH DO YOU HATE NET NEUTRALITY'
... grumble grumble.... beep beep beep beep
"Incredible! We have a pulse again!"
'SIR, DO YOU LOVE MONOPOLIES, YOU MUST COMMENT ON THE INTERNET ABOUT THIS, HERE TAKE THIS LAPTOP'
... beep beep beep beep beep beep beep .....
"I... am ... I do.... I do love... I.... I DO LOVE MONOPOLIES, I.... I DO HATE NET NEUTRALITY.... FINALLY... A REASON TO LIVE!! GIVE ME THAT LAPTOP NOW!!!!"
'It's a medical miracle!!!!!!'