I am a bit confused as I have read that this bill only reverses a bill that was past last year and isn't even in effect yet. Would also explain the split right down the political ile. Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Internet privacy in the US may be non existent but it hasn't changed in many years from what I can tell.
The outrage seems overblown or at least misplaced as nothing has actually changed if that is true.
What you have read is propaganda. ISPs have never been allowed to do what they are about to do. Between the move to common carrier until the new privacy rule was to go into effect ISPs could theoretically have started new data selling programs but they had not because of the legal uncertainty and they knew the new rules were coming.
My understanding is that the ftc was protecting things, this protection was removed recently, then the fcc bill was introduced to try and maintain privacy. This too has now been removed. So now there is no protection for privacy. Things are absolutely different now.
The party of hypocrisy - eg had only one 9/11 commission but ten Benghazi commissions, or eg cared about deficits only when Democratic president is in power
Gerrymandering (REDMAP)
Threatened US default over debt ceiling
Wanted to gut ethics committee as soon as they could
Refused to hold a vote on a supreme court justice indefinitely as long as a Democrat president nominated him/her
Told CBO not to calculate cost of repealing Obamacare
Want to roll back civil rights of gays
Want to roll back environmental protections
Want to make coal and fossil fuels win over clean energy, are angry about investment in green energy
Want to roll back privacy and net neutrality
Want to use taxpayer money to expand the army already past ridiculous levels
Are angry about universal healthcare even though rest of the developed world has it and has cheaper better outcomes
What is the explanation for why they seem to be against everything that a person would normally consider good?
I realize they say they want personal freedom and smaller government. But then they want to expand the army, keep increasing fossil fuel subsidies, etc.
And when someone is incompetent, they seem applaud it... they seem to be against college education, teaching evolution, skeptical of global warming to the end, etc. and (with some exceptions) are ok with Donald Trump's blundering and appointments of people to agencies who have explicitly said in the past they want those agencies eliminated.
Why? Am I really being partisan and Democrats break just as many rules? I just don't see it. Both parties have their problems but Democrats seem to at least care about competence and fairness while Republicans honestly seem to find new rules to break all the time, on top of everything I mentioned above. And then when the Democrats follow suit they get upset.
Yes you are being partisan and not seeing how the D's do the same things. If I wasn't on mobile I'd explain more in detail, but essentially its a corruption, oligarchy, corporatacracy problem that transcends parties.
I sincerely hope you come back to explain in some more detail, because this sounds like a bullshit claim to me. The Democrats aren't the ideal ruling party, but they are not nearly as bad as the Republican party. I wouldn't say they're even in the same ballpark.
That's obviously not the only way to enforce abortion laws. You make abortions illegal, then you hold the doctors accountable.
Since it doesn't make sense to imprison the parent in an abortion doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to ban the medical practice of abortion. It's a silly argument, really.
> Refused to hold a vote on a supreme court justice indefinitely as long as a Democrat president nominated him/her
Republicans have confirmed Democratic supreme court nominees before [1]
> Want to make coal and fossil fuels win over clean energy, are angry about investment in green energy
Not true, they want a market based solution to clean energy
> Want to roll back privacy and net neutrality
They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality
> Are angry about universal healthcare even though rest of the developed world has it and has cheaper better outcomes
Republicans believe in individual liberty and individual responsibilty and that healthcare is an earned right.
> I realize they say they want personal freedom and smaller government. But then they want to expand the army
Republicans believe that defense is within the purview of government.
Also, note that if you give people freedom they will use it. So you will see some crazy people among Republicans, but it is preferrable ( atleast to some people ) to the politically correct groupthink present on the left.
But the anti-science crictism of Republicans is valid. They need to do better.
But it is surprising to me how much Republican bashing goes on in this site. I am not American, but still I find it annoying.
> They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality
See, this is annoying. Because of telecom regulation, there is no 'market' so to speak. Lets roll back the regulations and allow some actual, legit last-mile competition, and then this might make sense.
As it stands now, in most markets, there is no choice of a high-speed ISP that isn't drooling over the collection of internet usage data.
I think people on HN over-estimate the consumer demand for privacy. One need only look at how many people use Facebook or other social networks to know this really just isn't important to them. So the market for people who care enough about usage data collection in order to actually speak with their wallets is incredibly small. If the market does demand it, then WIFI routers will start to advertise easy VPN setup with various vendors as a feature. Or maybe some other solution will arise. The market will provide one way or another.
> They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality
> They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality
Bullshit propaganda. They are not interested at all I solving these problems. To them, "market based solutions" means doing nothing and let the market do its thing.
If they were serious, they'd be in favor of cap and trade for carbon emissions, like they were for sulfur in the 1990s.
> Republicans have confirmed Democratic supreme court nominees before [1]
That doesn't disprove what I said. Just because you've been not killing people for 10 years, and suddenly you kill someone, that doesn't make it OK. Both parties had been holding votes to confirm the other's nominees to the Supreme Court, until the Republicans didn't. That was my point – they are the first to break a rule, that until now has been observed. It seems they have no qualms about it. Please list the same about Democrats, in the same amount – I actually want to see it.
> Not true, they want a market based solution to clean energy
A fine line coming from the guys who have been historically giving 10x as many subsidies to fossil fuels as to clean energy? In essence propping up this industry? We are talking many billions of dollars in market distortion. We could have had a lot of clean energy by now if they hadn't been picking winners and losers.
Is that why Donald Trump just made sure that environmental considerations won't be a factor in funding new coal plants? All the experts say this won't bring back coal jobs, yet DT and the Republicans really try. If they are for market based solutions, why do the subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of billions?
> They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality
Fair enough, but it's not market based when telcos can sue cities to prevent them from using their own infrastructure to provide broadband for their citizens. The telcos are corporations, which are basically getting free handouts from the government. Is that purely market based? But anyway, as you know most people on this board are against having net neutrality gutted in favor of purely market-based solutions.
> Republicans believe in individual liberty and individual responsibilty and that healthcare is an earned right.
Well then they shouldn't have voted for the CORBA bill of 1985. Prior to this, patients would be turned away from hospitals for inability to pay, and would die on the way to the next hospital. That law requires hospitals to treat patients regardless of ability to pay. So individual responsibility is, in fact, making sure people pay before they need it, instead of freeriding on society's money. That's their individual responsibility.
In fact the individual mandate is the conclusion of the Heritage Foundation, which was implemented in RomneyCare by Romney, an establishment Republican. And resulted in everyone in Massachussets being able to afford healthcare. But as soon as Obama did the same thing, it suddenly became evil and slavery. Well, that would mean that Republicans' own ideas are evil and slavery, according to Republicans. This is an example of the hypocrisy. Where am I being unfair? It's their own words and standard, before and after.
> Republicans believe that defense is within the purview of government.
And other things are not, such as interstate commerce or the welfare clause, or regulating banks?
And frankly, which government? State governments have much more ability to do those things and more. The Federal government may be more restricted.
So anyway, because the army is "in the purview of government" they can take unlimited amounts from people's paychecks to fund an ever expanding top-down centrally planned project to build 800 bases around the world (over 30x the rest of the world combined) and feed all the soldiers free food etc on our dime? And we can't say anything? This is their idea of small government and taxes? When is enough enough?
> Also, note that if you give people freedom they will use it. > So you will see some crazy people among Republicans, but it > is preferrable ( atleast to some people ) to the politically > correct groupthink present on the left.
Yes, the left has various SJWs who also care more about their ideology than facts, etc. But the Republican party has denial of evolution, global warming, distrust of college education, etc. I realize that's probably because college-educated people are more likely to be on the left, having been exposed to more viewpoints and having their ideas critically examined. And when you are on the right, you want your ideas to be Simple and Feel True, whereas nuance and data is the province of liberal nerds.
That is also why all fact-checkers are called "liberal biased" but there don't seem to be any "conservative biased" fact checkers. That's what I usually ask, where are the fact-checkers on the right?
But again, it's one thing to be on the right and have your views. It's another for statesmen to be hypocritical and unfair in your dealings. That's what bugs me the most about the Republican party. They break the rules first, and they act hypocritically.
(Just as one example of thousands: they attempt to block funds to NY/NJ after Hurricane Sandy, but then claim that the Federal government isn't fulfilling their obligations to Texas when they need help there.)
> Fair enough, but it's not market based when telcos can sue cities to prevent them from using their own infrastructure to provide broadband for their citizens. The telcos are corporations, which are basically getting free handouts from the government. Is that purely market based? But anyway, as you know most people on this board are against having net neutrality gutted in favor of purely market-based solutions.
So your are for more de-regulation then ?
> And we can't say anything? This is their idea of small government and taxes? When is enough enough?
You can and you should. All good questions.
> I realize that's probably because college-educated people are more likely to be on the left, having been exposed to more viewpoints and having their ideas critically examined. And when you are on the right, you want your ideas to be Simple and Feel True, whereas nuance and data is the province of liberal nerds.
Such nonsense. Do you fell 'Simple and True' now ?
> That is also why all fact-checkers are called "liberal biased" but there don't seem to be any "conservative biased" fact checkers. That's what I usually ask, where are the fact-checkers on the right?
I notice you made plenty of claims and provided no sources.
> But again, it's one thing to be on the right and have your views. It's another for statesmen to be hypocritical and unfair in your dealings. That's what bugs me the most about the Republican party. They break the rules first, and they act hypocritically.
It is funny that you must mention hypocrisy in your post many times, but the Democrats are whining about Republicans signalling to nuke the filibuster to confirm Gorsuch. This move was first taken by Democrats.
Well let's stick to just my claim about the fact checkers. It is a common refrain among Conservatives that fact-checkers are liberal biased. How much of it is due to actual bias in the fact checker vs whether conservatives just have their facts wrong more (as Colbert said at the Correspondents' dinner many years ago, "reality has a well known liberal bias") the question remains, where are all the fact-checkers which are biased the other way?
You have to provide sources on what exactly you think conservatives claimed. Side note, the quote "reality has a well known liberal bias" is a bastardization of the quote "The facts of life are conservative" first made by Margaret Thatcher.
"Threatened US default over debt ceiling" as I recall both parties play chicken with the economy to get their stuff passed, but the Democrats have the media to get people (perhaps like yourself) to buy that it's only Republicans who can take a hard line stance. Actually most of your examples are either complete strawmen or extremely biased and one-sided.
> "Threatened US default over debt ceiling" as I recall both parties play chicken with the economy to get their stuff passed
Can you name something similar the Democrats have done? As I remember it, nothing like it had ever been done before; they threatened to bankrupt the United States government, and caused the government's debt rating to be lowered, increasing the costs to taxpayers of of interest payments.
Saying 'they all are the same' is the bane of serious analysis and a well-established tactic of propagandists to shut down criticism (not that you are one, but my point is that there's a reason they use that tactic).
Each example was given from the context of the worst-case expected outcome. I could make a similar list starting with "Democrats want citizens to be raped and murdered by illegal aliens", "Democrats want to keep high health costs to the benefit of the insurance companies", "Democrats want to keep increasing taxes while spending it on frivolous pursuits, often on programs to ensure their re-election (by entrapping people into economic slavery)".
"Democrats want citizens to be raped and murdered by illegal aliens"
Rape is already a crime and illegal aliens commit these crimes at lower rates, so from a rationale of preventing rape/murder/{insert violent crime here} spending resources on a group that's less likely to do it isn't a good solution.
"Democrats want to keep high health costs to the benefit of the insurance companies"
Actually their favored policies like Public Option would destroy insurance companies. Also, single payer systems prevent buyers from competing, and as patio will tell you, when buyers can defect, you can raise your prices. Meanwhile sellers still compete. So single payer systems achieve lower prices for the same outcomes around the world. (As the data around the world proves.)
"Democrats want to keep increasing taxes while spending it on frivolous pursuits, often on programs to ensure their re-election (by entrapping people into economic slavery)"
If Google, Facebook and other major tech giants did lobby recently, then I consider the passing of this bill a major failure for those companies on lobbying effort. Would it be okay for Mark Zuckerberg to donate a huge private money to the Republican Party and overturn the ISP's influence?
Internet privacy in the US may be non existent but it hasn't changed in many years from what I can tell.
The outrage seems overblown or at least misplaced as nothing has actually changed if that is true.