FCC Suspends Net Neutrality Comments, As Chairman Pai Mocks 'Mean Tweets' (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader writes:Thursday the FCC stopped accepting comments as part of long-standing rules "to provide FCC decision-makers with a period of repose during which they can reflect on the upcoming items" before their May 18th meeting. Techdirt wondered if this time to reflect would mean less lobbying from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, but on Friday Pai recorded a Jimmy Kimmel-style video mocking mean tweets, with responses Gizmodo called "appalling" and implying "that anyone who opposes his cash grab for corporations is a moron."

Meanwhile, Wednesday The Consumerist reported the FCC's sole Democrat "is deploying some scorched-earth Microsoft Word table-making to use FCC Chair Ajit Pai's own words against him." (In 2014 Pai wrote "A dispute this fundamental is not for us five, unelected individuals to decide... We should also engage computer scientists, technologists, and other technical experts to tell us how they see the Internet's infrastructure and consumers' online experience evolving.") But Pai seemed to be mostly sticking to friendlier audiences, appearing with conservative podcasters from the Taxpayer Protection Alliance, the AEI think tank and The Daily Beast.
The Verge reports the flood of fake comments opposing Net Neutrality may have used names and addresses from a breach of 1.4 billion personal information records from marketing company River City Media. Reached on Facebook Messenger, one woman whose named was used "said she hadn't submitted any comments, didn't live at that address anymore and didn't even know what net neutrality is, let alone oppose it."

Techdirt adds "If you do still feel the need to comment, the EFF is doing what the FCC itself should do and has set up its own page at DearFCC.org to hold any comments."

Comments

STOP BEING MEAN

[PopeRatzo]

As Chairman Pai Mocks 'Mean Tweets'

Chairman Pai knows what's best and you people need to stop being so mean to the Trump regime. He was elected by the largest margin in modern history and he's the CEO of the country, so if he doesn't want Net Neutrality, you shouldn't complain because he's got the best people around him.

You should feel lucky that you're being allowed to comment at all.

Re:STOP BEING MEAN

[Cyberax]

Because he had to. Literally, he had to appoint at least one Republican into this commission by law.

Re:STOP BEING MEAN

[PopeRatzo]

Has it ever occurred to you that Trump is attempting to negotiate with the plutocracy corruption that's been allowed to fester for the past 30 years? You can't really just stand up to them (U.S. Chamber of Commerce et al) and say "hey, we're taking all the things you've enjoyed since the 70's away and you're going to like it." These are very powerful and influential people in this country and it's hard to tell what they would do in the face of a populist president that did just that without throwing them any kind of bone.

I'm trying to figure out a way to say this without being offensive, but that is the stupidest fucking thing I've heard so far this morning. To be fair, it's only 10:15am, so there's still plenty of time.

If Trump was "attempting to negotiate with the plutocracy", do you think a good first step is to appoint an Exxon CEO to be secretary of state and Wall Street bankers to be all over his cabinet? Is that how a negotiation works - by immediately giving away the store?

I'm not saying Trump is a model president but he's not pro-corporation.

OK, it's now 10:17am and you've already surpassed yourself.

This country is a plutocratic mess.

And you believe a corrupt billionaire is just the person to fix that plutocracy. Maybe you should look up "plutocracy".

Say, I play poker with some friends every Thursday night. Would you like to join us? We'll provide the snacks.

First Comey now this

[rsilvergun]

can we at least _pretend_ we're still a democracy?

Re:First Comey now this

[h33t l4x0r]

We are still a democracy, the problem is that half of us are idiots.

Re:First Comey now this

[Plus1Entropy]

We still are, believe it or not. There have been many checks against Trump's power in the short time he's been President, mostly from the judiciary, but also some from Congress as well. The new FBI director will require Congressional approval, and there are at least a few Republican Senators who are wary enough not to put some toady in... I hope.

The areas where Trump has far more latitude are things like the Department of Justice, immigration enforcement, regulatory agencies, etc. So it's not surprising to see him have the most effect there.

Of course the final check on him is impeachment, potentially. But (I didn't know this because I didn't live through it) apparently Watergate took 2 years to unfold before Nixon resigned... So no matter what, even if the Russia thing turns out to be the worst it could be, we're in for the long haul.

Re:First Comey now this

[silentcoder]

Well since the law requires the president to appoint at least 2 commissioners from the party he does not belong to - Obama didn't have much choice in the matter. Pai was a requirement under the law that created the FCC. Unfortunately when the republicans gave him the list of possible candidates for their seats it was pretty much Pai or "Our dark lord, Lucifer". Obama tried to choose the lesser of two evils (so instead of Lucifer we got the antichrist).
Then Lucifer became president and Pai went "annoying commissioner who keeps saying stupid shit" to "idiot in charge of the agency". Something that makes about as much sense as creating a "Privacy Protection Agency" with the mandate of monitoring inteligence agencies and ensuring they do not exceed their 4th amendment authority in surveillance - and then putting the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover in charge of it.

Re:First Comey now this

[silentcoder]

There are more than a few problems with the benevolent dictators:

1) People do, actually, have a right to govern themselves or at the very least choose who they allow to govern them - a dictator no matter how benevolent - can never be a legitimate government.
2) The succession problem. Plato suggested the philosopher-king (another form of 'benevolent dictator') was a better choice than democracy because of democracy's vulnerability to demagogues, but the problem with both is - what happens when he or she kicks the bucket. There is no good way to ensure the next person in line will not be an evil and authoritarian dictator. In fact the lesson of history is that this seems inevitable, you go from 'one of the great kings who led his people from strengths to strength and raised standards of living for all" to "bastard king who ultimately deserved the beheading he got" in a generation, in fact you then tend to get between 5 and 10 more of the bastards before you get another smart one (usually one who had no expectation of being in the succession at all).
3) Corrupting influence of power - the longer somebody is in charge, the less honest they tend to be come and the more likely to commit gross abuses of power. FDR is about the closest thing to a real exception there is - and even he ended up doing those Japanese Internment Camps near the end. Democracy lets you institute term limits, so the good guys who get in charge can be kicked out before they BECOME bad guys. Failure to have term limits tend to be a grave mistake. In the 1980s a people's leader led his oppressed countrymen to freedom and independence. He became president - praised and cheered the world over as a true bastion of human rights, liberties and justice - and ultimately as a peacemaker and under his rule the country became the largest food exporter on the continent. Today that EXACT SAME PERSON is known as one of the most brutal dictators on the continent, the country is constantly starving and they've been through numerous waves of hyperinflation. Robert Mugabe is the evidence of the problem: good guys become evil if you they stay in power for too long - and what's worse the dirtier their hands get the more desperate they become to cling to power, after all, losing power will likely mean spending the rest of his life in jail.

So no, the benevolent dictator is a bad idea. That said, democracy is not perfect either. Plato was correct in identifying the real risk that a demagogue could replace democracy with tyranny, the US founding fathers knew their Plato and greatly feared that - as they abandoned the monarchism Plato had inspired throughout Europe - they would risk the same in the new country they were founding. Their answer was numerous checks and balances - including one on the electoral process itself. This 'electoral college' served one key purpose: to ensure that, even if a demagogue wins the vote, he would not get to be president.
Unfortunately the E.C. ultimately became so watered down that - when an actual demagogue ran - not only did it fail to prevent him from becoming president, it actually ENABLED him in an election he had absolutely lost. That was the exact opposite of what the founding fathers had in mind. And the ultimate argument for undoing the E.C. is that it didn't do the job it was created for (and in fact didn't just fail but actually ACHIEVED the very thing it exists to prevent). Perhaps reforming it would be better than scrapping it, I am not sold either way - but the key point stands. Checks and balances, a leader subservient to a constitution with numerous institutions empowered to prevent him doing things he isn't empowered to do - those are the things that make democracy viable.

Re:Net Neutrality is a pile of crap... and it stin

[silentcoder]

Aah yes, the republican's favorite argument (they made it about their healthcare bill too) "If it's smaller it must be better".

I can only assume they spend a great deal of time practicing this argument while their wives and mistresses try not to laugh.