Slashdot Mirror


FCC Chairman Keeps Up Assault on Social Media (axios.com)

Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is doubling down on his critique of tech companies, asking whether social media is "a net benefit to American society" in remarks at the Media Institute on Wednesday. "Now, I will tell you upfront that I don't have an answer." From a report: What he said: Pai made the case that social media has been key to the politicization of many aspects of American life. "Everything nowadays is political. Everything. ... This view that politics-is-all is often made worse by social media," he said, per his prepared remarks.

15 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is also made worse by his policy ideas, so there's that.

    1. Re:Also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If actually read what he said about Social Media I don't know how anyone can really disagree with his position on it.

      By all indications it does isolate people, cause political divisions, and is a huge waste of time.

      It is not the job of the FCC to decide on whether or not social media should exist. Our constitution pretty much says yes it is allowed. We need ways to validate links to see if the information is true or not, and it needs to be in real time and available to everyone who is viewing the link.

      The Internet is basically a commons, or at least it should be. Letting ISPs allow different companies to win and others to lose, is the same as dedicating entire roads for the elite. We would not put up with it. We should not put up with this. Keep speaking out about how stupid this is.

  2. Irrelevant by xbytor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "whether social media is "a net benefit to American society" is irrelevant to any discussion of Net Neutrality.

    Whether Twitter is biased is irrelevant to any discussion of Net Neutrality.

    This is just more deflection. Pai has jumped the shark. Anything he says anymore does nothing to contribute to informed discussion.

    Makes me miss Wheeler: he turned out to be far more reasonable than I ever expected and than Pai ever will be.,

    1. Re:Irrelevant by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is just more deflection.

      No, it's worse. Pai asks rhetorically whether social media is "a net benefit to American society" and then dodges his own question by saying "Now, I will tell you upfront that I don't have an answer." By doing this, he manages to imply that the answer to his question is "no" without actually saying so. There's a word for this: innuendo.

      Pai has jumped the shark.

      Alas, he's a presidential appointee. We're stuck with him until his term expires.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  3. Okay, social media is a cesspool, but... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it has squat to do with Net Neutrality. He's conflating issues and handwaving. It does not give the FCC justification to allow the foxes to run amok in the henhouse.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    1. Re:Okay, social media is a cesspool, but... by Narcocide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately this lame ploy will work on 9 out of 10 regular people.

  4. Fuck you Pai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't see the worth of social media either, but it isn't my place, or yours, to dictate what benefits society.

  5. The guy is delusional. . . by Idou · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why does he even bother? Anyone with any remote interest in the subject knows he is nothing more than a paid Verizon shill with an 8 year-old's buzz cut who has no place being the head of the FCC. . .

    Why does he attempt to argue any kind of point online? He is selling out the future of the U.S. for pennies on the dollar and should go to prison for it. He might as well post "FU, bitche$, im gonna get PAID!" every morning when he wakes up, 'cause that is what we imagine he is thinking every time we see his pompous mouth-breather face. . .

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  6. Re:Why are social media sites so non-neutral? by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Net neutrality is about bandwidth allocations by upstream ISPs. Stop trying to conflate that with platform's own rules for content moderation. Furthermore, you're a bad person for trying to claim this only happens to "leftist" content or that "leftist" is even a thing.

  7. Re:What is YOUR net benefit to american society ? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You just proved his point....

  8. Re:Why are social media sites so non-neutral? by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Net Neutrality is not only about bandwidth allocation but also about WHAT you are allowed to connect to. It is none of my ISP's business nor concern whether my packets are going across the state or across the planet. The source and destination (and contents) of my packets are none of the ISPs business beyond simply routing the packets.

    This is true whether my packets to go a so called 'social' network (they do not) or to elsewhere.

    Net Neutrality is about my connection to the internet and my choices to connect to sites of my liking. Not about what is allowed or not allowed on those sites. I can choose the sites for myself. I don't want my ISP choosing for me.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  9. Re:Benefit to American society? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it is simply a huge black hole for time that could be productively used for employment, study, personal enrichment, and trolling slashdot. With the additional benefit of avoiding more ads. Don't get me started about TV.

    True this. But let's not start sounding like our grandparents, blaming the fall of Western Civilization on that blasted idiot box. We survived. So will the kids who grew up with the Internet.

    Big Picture, Mr. Idiot Pai is simply performing a pivot; attempting to duck the controversy about Net-Neutrality with a head-fake toward the boogeyman of mean, mean social media (and the rich, nasty, West-Coast libs who own it). Let your mind go soft and go "Gosh, maybe the Internet would be nicer if ISP's could charge more against nasty social-media sites and newspapers that pick on helpless political hacks like Pai and his sweet dear leader." Think nice thoughts while Pai's FCC junks Net-Neutrality and Title II with a party-line vote to open the floodgates to vast new opportunities for ISP profits. I wonder which of his relatives is flush flush flush with Verizon and Comcast stock, ready to take off once they finally have the right to get a piece of every successful internet business' action.

    Put simple, you wanna stream that Disney movie? Not on Comcast's wires you won't, not unless Disney pays Comcast a little extra for that bandwidth. Money money money that will eventually trickle out of you. Oh, sure, you can just pirate from a torrent... but wait! without Net-Neutrality, your ISP can shut that off, completely. VPN? Now they're calling it a business application, costs extra to carry those packets. The possibilities for new fees are as boundless as the Internet itself, with that silly Net-Neutrality out of the way.

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  10. Re: Benefit to American society? by Rakarra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have to pay more for faster connection, why shouldn't Disney operate under the same cicumstances?

    They do. Don't they pay for their bandwidth connection? And doesn't the end customers pay for their bandwidth connection?

  11. Re:Net Benefit by shilly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nope, he's really not. Trump is a self-confessed sexual predator and has been accused of child abuse.

  12. Re:Benefit to American society? by Xyrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is anyone really surprised? Did anyone honestly not see the parallels between the Great Orange Hitler and the original?

    One of the keys of Hitler's rise to power was the control of information. We now have the head of the FCC drawing upon "fake news" and "alternative facts" to push an agenda to give absolute control of information to a handful of major corporations. Once given, these corporations will be able to filter and manipulate any information flowing through them to their own gain. They'll be able to favor candidates, block news sites, charge ridiculous amounts of money for services, and it will all be perfectly legal.

    It's the perfect end-around of the first amendment. The government can't do anything in regards to freedom of speech, but no such stipulation exists for companies. And without net neutrality, those neo-fascists pricks that run the big ISPs can censor and filter and push whatever they like. They'll be able to freely block candidates that don't support their agenda. They can censor out videos and information they don't like. And if you try to work around their restrictions they'll label you as a criminal or a terrorist.

    This is what these assholes have been dreaming of for years; corporate fascist control of information ensuring that only their candidates remain in power. You'll see, hear, and read only what they want you to. The US will develop it's own great firewall so that all of those "bad influences" don't get in. It'll be done "for your protection". It will be done "for our freedoms". And just like Hitler's Germany, the people will cheer this on as the last vestiges of democracy are destroyed.

    Anyone want to take any bets when the modern day equivalent of the Reichstag is going to take place?
     

    --
    ~X~