Is global net neutrality NOW really at risk ?

[Commodore]

That was before when they were a smaller company and was worried about being muscled out by the larger corporations building their own search engines or being blocked

No, they were one of several tech and social media companies that vehemently opposed the vote that took place yesterday. Among the companies that argued against the current repeal were Google, Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, and Amazon. Don't get me wrong, I don't think they want to keep net neutrality out of the goodness of their hearts. They oppose the repeal because it could potentially make their businesses less profitable. I don't care what their motivations are though, I'll take allies wherever I can get them on this issue. Especially if those allies happen to be some of the most powerful corporations on the planet.

 

[metalhead]

Still glad you voted for this?

 

[Commodore]

Still glad you voted for this?

Who are you talking to? Because it surely isn't me as I did not vote for this at all.

 

[Angst]

Trumpets, I guess

 

[Lexicus]

Who are you talking to? Because it surely isn't me as I did not vote for this at all.

Didn't you vote for Jill Stein in Ohio?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Internal FCC Report Shows Republican Net Neutrality Narrative Is False

So the Republicans coordinated and spun a narrative on right-wing media that had almost no basis in reality. Who is surprised?

 

[Commodore]

I also read the Democrats are preparing to use one of the Republicans' favorite tactics against them. They are going to use the Congressional Review Act to stall the repeal and potentially overturn it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think they have to have a majority of votes in both houses to pull that off. Maybe I was reading about another procedural tactic yesterday but if it was the same one then they'll try but won't succeed. Surprisingly they have a majority of the Senate behind them but unsurprisingly they do not have the majority of the House.

 

[Lexicus]

I think they have to have a majority of votes in both houses to pull that off. Maybe I was reading about another procedural tactic yesterday but if it was the same one then they'll try but won't succeed. Surprisingly they have a majority of the Senate behind them but unsurprisingly they do not have the majority of the House.

They need simple majorities in each chamber IIRC. Have to see whether any Republicans change sides; if there is a sustained campaign like we saw with the ACA repeal attempts it could happen. Probably won't, but not impossible.

And, of course, if they don't change sides, we have to make them pay for it in November.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah we're not going to be able to change the House's stance on this until after the election when it will be too late for a quick regulation repeal.

I cannot imagine I am the only voter who's Rep doesn't live in their district, doesn't have Town Halls and replies to complaints about the repeal with bullet points from Fox News.

The most we can hope for is the courts to stall this out for a year and then the new Congress might be able to overturn it altogether with new laws. But I think that route (which is distinct from regulatory oversight/repeal) would require 60 votes in the Senate. I don't think the Democrats will get that in 2018.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm going to send my rep another message through #resistbot. I strongly urge everyone else to do the same. Text 50409 to start the process. It takes all of 5 minutes the first time + the time it takes to type your message. After the first time it's virtually instantaneous.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah we're not going to be able to change the House's stance on this until after the election when it will be too late for a quick regulation repeal.

That's okay, gives an excuse for the revolutionary situation which involves expropriating the broadband companies by turning the internet into a public utility.

The most we can hope for is the courts to stall this out for a year and then the new Congress might be able to overturn it altogether with new laws. But I think that route (which is distinct from regulatory oversight/repeal) would require 60 votes in the Senate. I don't think the Democrats will get that in 2018.

I just did a little reading, problem is that even though they only need simple majorities to pass the CRA thing, they would need 2/3 to override Trump's near-certain veto. So it doesn't actually change the thing much.

Incidentally, if Democrats take the Senate I hope they get rid of the legislative filibuster.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Scorched Earth tactics like this make me very uneasy.

On the one hand, I believe in checks and balances. One party should not be able to run roughshod over the opposition in government without ironclad majorities.

On the other hand, the Republicans have already engaged in these tactics and have undermined the very functioning of our government and therefore any tools they have to obstruct should be taken away.

I'm conflicted but I think I've seen enough political destruction to support complete dismantling of these kinds of barriers.

 

[Lexicus]

Scorched Earth tactics like this make me very uneasy.

On the one hand, I believe in checks and balances. One party should not be able to run roughshod over the opposition in government without ironclad majorities.

On the other hand, the Republicans have already engaged in these tactics and have undermined the very functioning of our government and therefore any tools they have to obstruct should be taken away.

I'm conflicted but I think I've seen enough political destruction to support complete dismantling of these kinds of barriers.

I'm past caring about Congressional procedure for its own sake at this point. The Republicans are the ones who opened this can of worms, now I just want to dump it on their head. I'm like Cato, standing up in every meeting to remind everyone that "the Republican Party must be destroyed."

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think I agree with that stance. Now my biggest concern is how these tactics will come back to haunt the country in the future. The Dems lowered the bar on court appointments and the Republicans have used that window to ram through "judges" who are partisan hakcs that couldn't tell the difference between a courtroom and a c-suite, for example.

But then again, the Republicans almost certainly would have lowered that bar themselves if it hadn't already been lowered.

 

[Lexicus]

I think I agree with that stance. Now my biggest concern is how these tactics will come back to haunt the country in the future. The Dems lowered the bar on court appointments and the Republicans have used that window to ram through "judges" who are partisan hakcs that couldn't tell the difference between a courtroom and a c-suite, for example.

But then again, the Republicans almost certainly would have lowered that bar themselves if it hadn't already been lowered.

If we get big enough majorities we can impeach judges who are obvious partisan hacks. In general I think we need to add some amendments to the Constitution so I'm not so concerned with preserving the system we have now.

 

[Broken_Erika]

And then the Republicans declare that the American People are Biased against them therefore they aren't allowed to vote....

 

[hobbsyoyo]

@Lexicus Can we though? I do not think you can just impeach judges because Congress flipped. It would take a lot of judges to all goof in a big way for their to be grounds to impeach them. Now I do believe that they are forcing through some grade-a scumbags and I expect a small wave of impeachments due to sexual harrassment claims and corruption but not enough to swing the power balance in the courts over all. We are stuck with this legacy for the next decades.

But yeah, the constitution needs an overhaul but I don't see that happening until 2020 at the earliest and even then it will only happen if Trump fires Mueller and continues on his downward spiral of corruption.

 

[Lexicus]

@Lexicus Can we though? I do not think you can just impeach judges because Congress flipped. It would take a lot of judges to all goof in a big way for their to be grounds to impeach them. Now I do believe that they are forcing through some grade-a scumbags and I expect a small wave of impeachments due to sexual harrassment claims and corruption but not enough to swing the power balance in the courts over all. We are stuck with this legacy for the next decades.

But yeah, the constitution needs an overhaul but I don't see that happening until 2020 at the earliest and even then it will only happen if Trump fires Mueller and continues on his downward spiral of corruption.

If you're right we may have to look at the possibility of some extremely unfortunate accidents. Some well-timed extremely unfortunate accidents can make anyone, even a Republican federal judge, thoughtful.

 

[metalhead]

The most we can hope for is the courts to stall this out for a year and then the new Congress might be able to overturn it altogether with new laws. But I think that route (which is distinct from regulatory oversight/repeal) would require 60 votes in the Senate. I don't think the Democrats will get that in 2018.

I have a strong feeling that the Trump presidency is going to precipitate a sweeping SCOTUS ruling on due process in the administrative rulemaking process, possibly in connection with this very repeal which will almost certainly be blocked in at least one federal court. The process has been thoroughly corrupted and the administration has made no effort to protect or repair its broken integrity. Stay tuned.