Obama's Plan to Regulate the Internet is 332 Pages. The Public Can't Read It!

[spydy13]

Uh, I've asked you twice now for a justification for not making this reg available to the public before the vote, and you haven't answered. And now you're asking me another question?

But what the hell, I'll answer. No, I wouldn't plan on reading all of it initially, because it is not my field. But there are tens of thousands of people who would, and who'd then be capable of focusing on key language and starting an informed debate/discussion for the rest of us. To the extent specific problematic language was identified, yes, I'd read some of that for myself. I've read hundreds of pages of the ACA over time to verify/analyze various critiques/commentaries.



Uh...yes, as a matter of fact. I have.

Some language --particularly amendments to existing bills -- can be enormously complicated and very difficult to get through. That's true for the people who are drafting it as well, which is why errors/mistakes are not uncommon. Other stand-alone regulations or bills aren't bad at all, especially if they're drafted well. Though even then, errors are not uncommon.

But all you're really doing is validating the point that making the regulation public before it is passed, so that lawyers and other outside experts can analyze and comment upon it, is the wisest course

I should have combined the posts but here is my answer in a previous post:

Would it be better if this was out in the open? Yes, mainly because people who are so concerned about this would see that there is nothing wrong with the regulation. Do I want congress getting their grubby hands on this issue? Nope.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I should have combined the posts but here is my answer in a previous post:

Fair enough. And you don't want the people -- citizenry, taxpayers, etc.. -- getting their "grubby hands" on this either.

Well, I think that's not exactly consistent with what I've always understood to be our theory of governance, but I appreciate the honestly.

 

[MRMsix6]

Here's the best part of that 3.5 page "fact sheet":

"Greater Transparency: The rules described above would restore the tools necessary to address specific conduct by broadband providers that might harm the Open Internet. But the Chairman’s proposal also recognizes the critical role of transparency in a well-functioning broadband ecosystem. The proposal enhances existing transparency rules, which were not struck down by the court."

Well, la-di-frickin-da.


And as someone who reads lengthy contracts just about every day for minutiae that can potentially fuck you in the ass down the road, that shit matters and should have been made public. Passing rules in secret that affect just about the entire country is disgusting and cowardly. That shit cannot be tolerated.

 

[spydy13]

Fair enough. And you don't want the people -- citizenry, taxpayers, etc.. -- getting their "grubby hands" on this either.

Well, I think that's not exactly consistent with what I've always understood to be our theory of governance, but I appreciate the honestly.

Again, I'm fine with the general public seeing it.

If this went to congress though they would all be bought off by the lobbying efforts by the ISPs or it would get stuck in the gridlock and nothing would ever happen. Either outcome is bad for the consumer/citizenry/taxpayer.

 

[MRMsix6]

If this went to congress though they would all be bought off by the lobbying efforts by the ISPs or it would get stuck in the gridlock and nothing would ever happen. Either outcome is bad for the consumer/citizenry/taxpayer.

There are giant corporate interests on both sides of this. Except only one side is writing the rules...behind closed doors.

 

[Man Called X]

People, this was voted on in secret so you wouldn't know about it. Do you not realize this? This has nothing to do with keeping the internet an open and free enterprise, and everything to do with giving the government the ability to shape the internet the way it wants.

Congratulations America. You've officially allowed the internet to become the same neutered internet that the People's Republic of China gets.

 

[spydy13]

Here's the best part of that 3.5 page "fact sheet":

"Greater Transparency: The rules described above would restore the tools necessary to address specific conduct by broadband providers that might harm the Open Internet. But the Chairman’s proposal also recognizes the critical role of transparency in a well-functioning broadband ecosystem. The proposal enhances existing transparency rules, which were not struck down by the court."

Well, la-di-frickin-da.


And as someone who reads lengthy contracts just about every day for minutiae that can potentially fuck you in the ass down the road, that shit matters and should have been made public. Passing rules in secret that affect just about the entire country is disgusting and cowardly. That shit cannot be tolerated.

So you're mad that they plan to give transparency back to consumers?

I mean I get that's ironic that they talk about transparency in this plan and yet the final document hasn't been released, but they thing you quoted is good.

 

[Man Called X]

Why consider my post funny? They've been trying to do it for years.

You don't think a gov't entity that controls what can and can't be said on the airwaves/tv/etc isn't going to control what you can see on the internet? You're a special kind of stupid if you truly believe that.

 

[MRMsix6]

So you're mad that they plan to give transparency back to consumers?

I mean I get that's ironic that they talk about transparency in this plan and yet the final document hasn't been released, but they thing you quoted is good.

...I'm just laughing at the extreme irony and hypocrisy.

Hard to criticize the new rules without knowing exactly what they are. Genius plan, really.

 

[spydy13]

There are giant corporate interests on both sides of this. Except only one side is writing the rules...behind closed doors.

Yeah, but one side of corporate interests would directly benefit from this not passing, while the other, who are mainly content providers, would prefer not to get extorted by the other side.

A third side, who stands to gain nothing from this, is writing the rules.

 

[Man Called X]

Just wait until it comes out that the FCC will be able to tell DNS providers to no longer allow linking to news websites etc. They'll claim it is only going to be used for terrorist websites/piracy concerns. Then one day the internet won't be able to find infowars.

As outspoken as some of the members on this website are, don't be shocked to see RCF disappear in a few years.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Yeah, but one side of corporate interests would directly benefit from this not passing, while the other, who are mainly content providers, would prefer not to get extorted by the other side.

A third side, who stands to gain nothing from this, is writing the rules.

What? The side writing the rules gains everything. The politicians will get nice kickbacks from the companies they end up favoring. They will have control and surveillance of all content, which is all they really want.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Just wait until it comes out that the FCC will be able to tell DNS providers to no longer allow linking to news websites etc. They'll claim it is only going to be used for terrorist websites/piracy concerns. Then one day the internet won't be able to find infowars.

As outspoken as some of the members on this website are, don't be shocked to see RCF disappear in a few years.

RCF may not disappear, but I probably will.

 

[spydy13]

Why consider my post funny? They've been trying to do it for years.

You don't think a gov't entity that controls what can and can't be said on the airwaves/tv/etc isn't going to control what you can see on the internet? You're a special kind of stupid if you truly believe that.

What are they censoring on the airwaves/tv/etc? Violence is rampant, sex is rampant, free speech is everywhere. Not sure I see the problem that would make you think we are suddenly going to become China and block people from seeing things critical of the government, pornographic, or violent. If we really operated that way Obama would have had FOX News shut down his first day in office.

I find the leap you make to be ridiculous and funny.

 

[Man Called X]

What are they censoring on the airwaves/tv/etc? Violence is rampant, sex is rampant, free speech is everywhere. Not sure I see the problem that would make you think we are suddenly going to become China and block people from seeing things critical of the government, pornographic, or violent. If we really operated that way Obama would have had FOX News shut down his first day in office.

I find the leap you make to be ridiculous and funny.

I find it hilarious that you don't understand what I'm talking about.

This has nothing to do with decency of the airwaves. FFS, all the violence and sex is there purposely to distract you and desensitize you. This is the same government that has tried to make it a crime to speak out against America on MULTIPLE occasions. Starting as early 1782.

Your ability to protest the government has already been stripped. You cannot protest anywhere within 100 yards of an on duty member of the Secret Service. Wake the fuck up and see what is happening.