SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The story of net neutrality as an Obama-led takeover of the Internet has been a key Republican talking point for months, a talking point which has been refuted by internal FCC documents obtained by Motherboard using a Freedom of Information Act request. These findings were made by the independent, nonpartisan FCC Office of Inspector General an Inspector General. However, the findings were not made public prior to Thursday’s vote.
[...] First, some background: The FCC is an independent regulatory agency that is supposed to remain “free from undue influence” by the executive branch—it is not beholden to the White House, only the laws that Congress makes and tells it to regulate. This means the president cannot direct it to implement policies. In November 2014, President Obama released a statement saying that he believed the FCC should create rules protecting net neutrality, but noted that “ultimately this decision is theirs alone.”
[...] Since 2014, Republicans have pointed to net neutrality as an idea primarily promoted by President Obama, and have made it another in a long line of regulations and laws that they have sought to repeal now that Donald Trump is president. Prior to this false narrative, though, net neutrality was a bipartisan issue; the first net neutrality rules were put in place under President George W. Bush, and many Republicans worked on the 2015 rules that were just dismantled.
What happened, then, is that Republicans sold the public a narrative that wasn’t true, then used that narrative to repeal the regulations that protect the internet.
Internal FCC Report Shows Republican Anti-Net Neutrality Narrative Is False
(Score: 2, Troll) by gottabeme on Wednesday December 20 2017, @01:38PM (3 children)
The parent comment is double-modded as flamebait, and also modded as troll. In fact, it is the opposite, being interesting, insightful, observant, and an example of critical thinking.
The people who modded the parent comment down should permanently lose moderation privileges. They are dishonest, and they are abusing the system. This is standard behavior by leftists: they have no scruples, and they will do whatever it takes to accomplish their goals. They will silence their opponents however they can. To them, the ends justify the means.
And the relatively small readership of SN means that every dishonest moderation has a much greater effect than on a site like Slashdot, because the chances that someone will come along and reverse it is smaller.
If this continues, it's likely that the site will gradually become yet another leftist echo chamber. The enemies of the truth will do whatever they can get away with. The only solution is a firm hand, because on the Internet, the cost of disruption and dishonesty is nil.
So it's up to the admins what kind of a site they want. If they want one for leftist trolls to run wild, they need do nothing.
Note, I'm not calling for the abusers to be banned from posting. They can rant all they want, but falsely moderating other users' comments is objectively abusive and should not be tolerated.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2017, @02:31PM (1 child)
are you serious?
This place has such a conservative slant I had to laugh when you blamed leftists for the moderation.
No, I think people are pissed. you don't have to wear a hipster che gueverra shirt for that.
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Thursday December 21 2017, @04:48PM
I don't usually respond to ACs, but let's look at the evidence here:
1. Non-leftist comment gets heavily modded down.
2. My comment pointing this out gets modded down.
3. Your comment claiming the opposite is modded up.
4. I observe more left-slanted stories posted to SN than right-slanted, such as this one.
So, we could quibble over the ratio, but the point is that the leftist mob is trying to overrun the place, just like anywhere else.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2017, @05:56PM
OP/GPP here.
Thanks for the kind words, dude. Or dudette. Whatever.
As of right now, that post was downmodded three times (twice as flamebait, once as troll) and upmodded three times (twice as insightful, once as interesting).
It's said you can tell a good idea by the enemies it makes. I think this makes a strong case that I was right on the money.
(Footnote: I'm an independent centrist policy wonk. I don't give a shit about left or right, I mostly think those labels are red herrings and the big parties are more like criminal gangs than anything else. I care about good policy - but I agree with you about shrill left wing nutters trying to stomp ground here by any means necessary. However, I think they're doing themselves more harm than good because they're so childishly transparent about it that they just come off as petty. So don't sweat it.)