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.
It is also made worse by his policy ideas, so there's that.
He dare not confront his boss directly, so he makes veiled statements whose meaning is clear to the Twitmeister.
I might be able to agree that social media is not a net benefit to American society. But for entirely different reasons than Ajit Pai.
Ajit Pai doesn't like it because people can express opinions -- oh my!
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.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
asking whether social media is "a net benefit to American society"
Arguably, most people's lives would probably be better off without social media creeping in like a drug. However, with that said, it's up to the individual if they cut off facebook or keep using it. The unwritten googolth amendment to the constitution is "the right to be a moron".
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
"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.,
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.
"Social" media appeals the most to narcissists, sycophants, conspiracy nuts, and the just flat out crazy. That, however, has absolutely NOTHING to do with net neutrality.
I don't see the worth of social media either, but it isn't my place, or yours, to dictate what benefits society.
He is republican in the sense that he was appointed by Trump. As expected he is trying to undo anything done by the previous administration. He is also republican in the sense that he would like to destroy the internet.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
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!
Because he himself has said that is his political affiliation.
He is also Republican in that he decries the large role of politics of society and in doing so denigrates politics overall - part of the game plan of any authoritarian sect. Remember that if you don't have politics deciding issues, you have authorities deciding issues. Yes, democracy and the resulting politics sucks, but they suck a lot less than the alternative.
That is all.
He's still right about social media and its effects on society.
Change it to something, anything, besides his goal of turning the Internet over to the money-hungry ISPs.
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.
He's just another astro-turfer, trying a new tactic for getting a rise out of us by blaming the real people here for the actions of other astro-turfers. Don't feed them by mistaking their statements as sincere.
You just proved his point....
Further still, you had the freedom to visit the social media sites of your choice without any barriers or bandwidth issues. That could, and likely will immediately, change without net neutrality.
But they are intrinsically linked and related. Phone companies cannot ban Nazis from using their lines yet the companies complaining the loudest about being under the same regulation want to be able to censor because xkcd made a comic about a weak excuse for censorship.
It's hard to take anyone seriously that argues in having and eating their cake.
Do you really not see a spectrum of championed beliefs or values with respect to political leanings? Just curious about your view point, if you'd care to enlighten.
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
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.
Uh, no. Not frosty. No thanks. I'd rather have to use Perl.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Pai is obviously trying to prepare the case for how his actions do not represent the subversion of the wishes of the people he should be serving by trying to make a molehill out of a mountain.
Its clear who he serves, and it ain't the people*.
*Oh wait, corporations are people !
Fake news.
This must be in response to him no longer being able to see free puppies on Twitter anymore:
https://www.boredpanda.com/mes...
He is republican in the sense that he was appointed by Trump.
Ummmm ... and before that he was appointed by Obama.
Breakfast served all day!
... asking whether social media is "a net benefit to American society" ...
I imagine the same can be asked of many of the following words: Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Helps me keep in touch with my family. And buy and sell groups for my local community. Thats about it though. )
[($)]
The issue at hand is NN and Title II regulation of ISPs not social media. This play is really starting to get tiresome /w everyone attempting to justify or deflect from their actions by pointing out what others are doing as if it's at all relevant to issue at hand or in any way justifies their own behavior.
As a separate matter I more or less agree with his sentiments. The media has basically turned itself into a professional trolling operation caring more about hyperbole and fear than useful information, bad governance (e.g. handing out megaphones to everyone) on sites like Twitter is done on purpose to maximize profit while people with psychology degrees are using their expertise to explicitly maximize addiction of children to social media platforms for profit. To say nothing of the insane aggregation of power over so many eyeballs by so few.
The internet did fantastic for 30 years without net neutrality. Get rid of it!
Which occurred under net neutrality rules.
Proto? The actual blackshirts are rioting, breaking windows, setting fires, intimidating political opponents, and beating people up. They're right in front of you and you can't see them.
It has nothing to do with being neutral on the political spectrum
Ajit Pai made a specific statement trying to tie them together.
Pai made a nonsensical statement trying to tie them together to distract from the topic. That doesn't make net neutrality and freedom of speech the same thing. It makes Pai a distributor of bullshit.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
It's interesting to see how your idea of net neutrality is twisted and manipulated to apply to only very specific cases that benefit those who want to force neutrality on others, but who don't want to be held to the same standard themselves.
Net neutrality is far more general than your faulty and limited definition.
Simply put, net neutrality is about treating all data the same.
No, no it is not. You are watering down the definition of Net Neutrality so that it will fit your political narrative again.
Pai made a nonsensical statement trying to tie them together to distract from the topic.
It's not entirely nonsense, it's calculated. A Republican might consider the real crime to be that their beliefs aren't appreciated, and that everyone gets "fair and balanced" equal time. They don't see companies charging whatever contracts they want as being a problem at all. So perverting the notion of net neutrality is totally fine with them.
With an alltime low voter turnout last election it's good that people are more interested in politics.
And no, cat pictures, TV shows, comic book movies, pop music, snapshots of your food, the vast majority of what people discuss is still not political. I'm not convinced he's able to take proper stock of online discussions.
Twinstiq, game news
I can imagine the the napkin that was used to write down the initial idea...."need a way for people to publish ill considered thoughts and get themselves fired or otherwise ostracized. And do in in less than 140 characters. "
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Net Neutrality is what the net HAD for 30 years. Only recently has it become an issue to defend net neutrality.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Narcocide stated:
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.
You're right about net neutrality. You're wrong about Ajit Pai.
Pai is a bad person for a plethora of reasons - beginning with the fact that he's a shill for mega-ISPs. His attempt to leverage political division to bolster his bullshit is about 47th on the list ...
Check out my novel.
Maybe, this is the time to abolish FCC altogether — and have one fewer federal agency?
No? Too much to ask for us, crazy Libertarians... The Statists do not mind these agencies — so long as they are in their hands...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Figures that the party of the most vocal critics of equal time* have become the party decrying the lack of "equal time" when it suits them, just because they disagree with someone's opinion.
* That was a huge debate back in the Reagan years, and the Republicans won by eliminating the "Fairness Doctrine" for broadcast news.
Gotta agree with Pai on this. Social media is a mixed bag, and probably a lot more bad than good.
I don't use any social media (unless /. counts?), I just watch videos and use old school MUD games and other gaming. I think Facebook and Twitter are stupid and a monumental waste of time. As a gamer, for me to say something is a waste of time.. it's gotta be pretty inane and worthless.
Sadly, at the same time, I'm observant enough to realize a lot of your average John Doe's actually think Facebook *IS* the Internet. Kinda feel sorry for them, it's soooooo much more.
He is republican in the sense that he was appointed by Trump.
Ummmm ... and before that he was appointed by Obama.
He was appointed to the FCC in 2012 by Obama, per Mitch McConnell's recommendation. Obama didn't have a choice in the matter. He had to appoint a Republican to fill a vacant Republican seat on the Commission. (That being said, his appointment was confirmed unanimously by the Senate.) His term expired on June 30, 2016.
Trump appointed Pai to the Chairmanship in January 2017. His appointment was confirmed by the senate in October 2017. This time, the Senate confirmation was far from unanimous: the vote was 52-41, split along party lines. (From 2012 to the present, Democrats learned more about Pai's views on deregulation, and changed their minds about him.)
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I agree completely except for this:
(From 2012 to the present, Democrats learned more about Pai's views on deregulation, and changed their minds about him.)
With Trump's appointments and legislative requests, the Democratic Party members have been voting as a block to oppose and derail essentially everything and everyone.
IMHO this is just another example of that policy, opposing any Republican appointee to a power position where confirmation was required, rather than anything that was revealed about his views during his tenure as a commissioner. They'd have voted against any Republican appointee to the chairmanship unless he was a Democrat's dream candidate for the position - and perhaps even then.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
What does that have to do with anything? I swear these politician assholes these days all keep trying to preach the same repeated sermon to their choir in the hopes none of their followers notices his wrongdoings.
I'm not sure where your imaginary version of history came from. Rules have only been in effect for 2.5 years.
Instead of social media overtly controlling content, Pai would prefer the ISPs covertly do it.
Here's an interesting list of who contributes money to whom. AT&T is predominantly Republican while Comcast is predominantly Democrat.
Someone should tell Pai that nobody cares about his opinion about what’s sent over the wires. We just want him to ensure that it gets carried in a way that benefits the public.
The rules were to protect the status quo. From the beginning, the internet did not discriminate based on where your packets go to or come from, nor based on what they contain. That kind of non-neutral interference is a recent development. That recent development is why the rules were created. To protect what caused the internet to become what it is. Removing Net Neutrality will put up choke points everywhere. Especially at all the endpoints which are mostly consumers.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
The rest of us don't give a shit. Fuck the Communists, Marxists and Socialists this is America.
First fuck the Nazis
After all, Socialists build roads, bridges and dams.
Nazis build ovens
so your phone call should be sorted just the same as my newest linux iso?
I'm fine with that. If you're using the internet for a service that is better served by a dedicated channel, then there are two options:
* Accept the internet's properties, and design around it (increasing latency by buffering, for example)
* Get your network providers to increase capacity so they aren't woefully oversubscribed. Because ISP's are woefully oversubscribed.
In the end, it comes down to peering. ISP's connect to various network tiers, and depending on the peering agreement, the packets are either transferred for "free", or are metered per Megabit packet transit. Even "free" peering is expensive: ISP's still have to pay for the fiber to connect, network hardware, power, etc. Packet transit is always a cost to the ISP.
Why? Because of CDN's: CDN's are not "the internet", but are instead large, high-speed, private networks. CDN's are company-owned WANs using leased-lines between sites, and not the internet. CDN's are "customers" of the ISP as well, and pay huge amounts of money to "deliver" content to the ISP's last mile.
ISP's want to turn their internet peering agreements on their head: ISP's want to be paid for packet transit from an upstream peer network, instead of peering being a cost. (ie. they want to turn the entire internet into a CDN that pays them)
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
On one hand, integrity, competence, and cluefulness have never been high on the Democrats' priority list for their own appointees.
On the other hand, "even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while", making uniform unfitness unlikely..
On the gripping hand, the Republicans seem to have no trouble voting for Trump's appointees. Their side includes several factions, virtually all at odds with Trump in one way or another, so party-line lockstep is not credible. And while both parties attract psychopaths, they attract different KINDS of psychopaths. The Rs attract the "rule-bound" type, who would consider corrupt appointees to be rule-breakers and be likely to vote against one they know to be corrupt.
So while you might not be able to distinguish the two explainations, I have no problems preferring my alternative.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The wedding cake spectacle was about a couple of customers asking for a wedding cake and (as far as I can tell) being verbally abused and later made a target of an internet harassment campaign by the bakers. Anyone supporting the bakers is either ignorant of what happened (not difficult; I had to find the Findings of Fact from the court decision to learn them, as there's darn little about what really happened in the news sources I see; even Snopes has a bad article, although they do have a link to the Findings of Fact) or a homophobic asshole.
I can understand being on the bakers' side on the assumption that there was anything polite about the bakers' side of the transaction, but that does not appear to be the case.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
As I understand it, the problem with treating VOIP packets differently from torrent packets is that people lie. It's hard to prioritize packets based on internal inspection, and the ISP can't rely on any marking of the packets.
This is annoying, because when I'm using VOIP I'm using little bandwidth but require low latency and no interruptions, while my torrenting uses a lot of bandwidth and I don't care if I get low latency or interruptions, but QoS is hard to get right.
The core of NN is that my packets can go where I want them and come from where I want without discrimination. QoS is compatible with that core.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There wasn't a dire need to enforce net neutrality until those who own the last mile themselves became sources of content and wished to use their ownership of the last mile as a cudgel against the competition. Remember when Comcast injected RST's into the torrent streams? Remember when it could be fully replicated that the major ISP's were deliberately throttling Netflix for no reason other than extortion? You don't have to like torrents or Netflix or even Facebooks and Twitters to see why there needs to be full separation between "those whose mundane job it is is to move bits across wires and radio waves" and "those who serve up $content".
Lockstep is what we have. If all the Democratic Senators vote against something, it takes all but about three Republican Senators to make a majority. If the Democrats were stonewalling en masse, and the Republicans had any significant factional differences in practice, no bill would pass and no nomination would be confirmed.. This is how the appointments happen: Trump nominates somebody obviously unsuitable, the Republicans vote yes, the Democrats vote no. You may want to speculate why these different factions all vote the same, but the fact is lockstep. Any theoretical reasoning you have to the contrary is false. (Fred T. Jane wrote a book "Heresies of Sea Power" in the early 20th Century, constructing a theoretical framework that explains carefully how the Japanese would win WWII. Same sort of thing.)
Republican lawmakers are screwed, and they know it. Trump has a fairly large core of people supporting him as Fuehrer, enough to dominate the Republican party as a whole. As a general rule, Republicans that break with Trump will have real problems getting renominated. The Republicans that occasionally vote against him are typically planning to retire.
And, in the meantime, they're doing things against the interests of about 99% of the people in the US. People are noticing. Trump has the lowest approval rating since we started watching approval ratings. Republicans are going to pay for that next November.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Obviously he's looking for hard numbers, and under the SI system, the Pajool (Pj) is the unit of societal benefit. Given that PeeWee Herman is equivalent to 3.1416 Pj, all other values may be derived. For example: that computer chick on "Criminal Minds" = -23 Pj, Enya (but only for her "Boadicea" hymn) = +51 Pj, Enya (all of her other soft, fluffy trash) = -6 Pj, Steely Dan (almost anything prior to 1981) = +32 Pj, Fortuna's pepperoni = +106 Pj, the tendency to consider almost any kind of computer logic to be AI = -1287 Pj, Coffee Rio caramels (plain coffee only) = +201 Pj, employers that force you to have a LinkedIn account = -523 Pj. You're welcome.