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