SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale
Republicans in Congress just voted to reverse a landmark FCC privacy rule that opens the door for ISPs to sell customer data. Lawmakers provided no credible reason for this being in the interest of Americans, except for vague platitudes about "consumer choice" and "free markets," as if consumers at the mercy of their local internet monopoly are craving to have their web history quietly sold to marketers and any other third party willing to pay.
The only people who seem to want this are the people who are going to make lots of money from it. (Hint: they work for companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.) Incidentally, these people and their companies routinely give lots of money to members of Congress.
So here [below in the article] is a list of the lawmakers who voted to betray you, and how much money they received from the telecom industry in their most recent election cycle.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by zocalo on Monday November 27 2017, @04:01PM
Take the DPRK; they have elections, everyone chooses their preferred option (there's often only one, so it's really simple), and as a result everyone gets what they want and is happy, and it's a shining example of a functioning democracy, right? I'd actually say that if democracy was working as originally intended then almost nobody would get *exactly* what they wanted, but as many people as possible would get a result that they can at least accept and work with. Let's look at Brexit again; roughly a 50:50 split between Leave/Remain, and of the Leave vote a range of opinions from a soft exit to hard exit. That distribution most probably follows a bell curve, but even if it's a linear distribution the current hardline exit approach doesn't really work for either the best overall solution or your "You lost, STFU!" approach. Yes, the Leave vote got the majority, so fine, for better or worse that's the way it's going to be (leaving aside the whole non-binding referendum and all the other issues with the setup), and whatever the eventual outcome we're going to have to try and make the best of it - and there's nothing wrong with expecting and preparing for the worst as long as you keep hoping for the best. However, by going for a hard exit (or what seems increasingly likely to be a no-deal default , which even Leave think tanks were saying would be a disaster before the vote) the Conversatives have pretty much guaranteed that not only will most of the ~50% who voted Remain not like the outcome, but whatever proportion of Leave voters that just wanted a soft exit for some nominal improvement on a given issue won't either.
The way I see it, there are two places where ballots should occur in a typical democracy; when electing representatives, and when those representatives make decisions on what becomes law. The former should really just inform the representatives of what their constituents views are so they can represent them more effectively, and the latter should be where you get the full-on, first past the post, "You lost, STFU!", style ballots based on that informed view of the distribution of their constituent's views on the matter. A referendum is a special case that applies the latter style to the general electorate, which is fine, but as the aftermath of Brexit demonstrated they need much clearer ground rules than David Cameron set up for Brexit to avoid all of the kinds of fallout that resulted. Things like being perfectly clear over the intent to avoid the Non-Binding vs. "It's the Will of the People, we're not have a debate!" issue, any ideally a minimum turnout / super-majority requirement (which Leave actually wanted to guarantee a do-over when they lost, but promptly shut-up about once the results came in) for what is presumably a major decision given that you're having a referendum in the first place.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!