Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The 265 Members of Congress Who Sold You Out to ISPs, and How Much It Cost to Buy Them

posted by Fnord666 on Monday November 27 2017, @02:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the which-did-you-vote-for dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

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.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The 265 Members of Congress Who Sold You Out to ISPs, and How Much It Cost to Buy Them | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 48 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by Spamalope on Monday November 27 2017, @06:16AM (2 children)

    by Spamalope (5233) on Monday November 27 2017, @06:16AM (#601960) Homepage

    If you're going to label this corporate purchasing of policy something, why would you pick 'free market' over oligarchy? (or I guess capitalist with significant oligarch corruption)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by NotSanguine on Monday November 27 2017, @07:06AM

    by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Monday November 27 2017, @07:06AM (#601970) Homepage Journal

    If you're going to label this corporate purchasing of policy something, why would you pick 'free market' over oligarchy? (or I guess capitalist with significant oligarch corruption)

    You are absolutely right. That's what I should have said. What would I do without you?

    Perhaps I could even have called it "Oligarchic Plutocracy." Yes. I'm so ashamed that I didn't do it that way.

    Oh, wait, that's *exactly what I said [soylentnews.org]:

    what we're seeing isn't libertarianism. What we're seeing is Corporations+captured government/regulators [harvard.edu]=Oligarchic [wikipedia.org] Plutocracy [wikipedia.org].

    I guess my question to you is whether you just wanted to poke me with a stick or if you missed that part? I suspect it's the former since the only mention of "free markets" was in the same paragraph to which you were responding. Or am I missing something important?

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr

  • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday November 28 2017, @04:46AM

    by dry (223) on Tuesday November 28 2017, @04:46AM (#602341) Journal

    It is the free market, the free market in buying government. That's the great thing about capitalism, if you have the capital, you can buy laws to make sure you get more capital as long as you have enough capital to win in the free market of congress critters.
    The golden rule, he who has the gold, makes the rules.