It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
xNIAx1 said:$1,000 dollars? I was legit looking forward to checking out this game but wow that is greedy as fuck. Gonna check this one off all together!
cameltosis said:I think you misunderstood Frenchie. The link he posted stated 83% of Americans are in favour of net neutrality, not opposed to it.Eldurian said:To be fair that's because the American voter is grossly uninformed about everything including net neutrality.
Half the time I hear people talk about net neutrality they are talking about "More government regulation" and "The FCC putting their greasy fingers on our internet."
They don't realize that "Net Neutrality" is a series of regulations enforced by the FCC, and the repeal of it means less government regulation, and less FCC involvement in our internet.
Of course many get this and it's the corporations they demonize, but many seem to feed into this ignorance with intentionally deceitful wording intended to use anti-FCC sentiment to get people to support NN.
I think the numbers would be very different if the American voter knew what they were talking about for once.
This is the reason we have a republic and not a democracy. It really is best we have people actually researched on these issues representing our interests rather than the common man voting on every single issue. Our founding fathers shunned direct democracy because of issues like this. It's the system that put Socrates to death after all.
You are likely right in that most Americans are tragically uninformed when it comes to making decisions (much like the rest of the world really) but at least in this instance, the public are on the right side of things. It's just a shame the FCC ignored them.
Nobody pays the FCC or its commissioners directly while they're on the commission. But it's an age old practice government-industrial complexes to do as follows.
Specially-interested corporation (To be hypothetical, let's call it... I don't know... Berizon) takes one of their lawyers (Again, to be hypothetical, let's call him Pajit Ai) and grooms him to become a commissioner of the FCC, pulling strings with allies in congress whom they donate too (Like, let's say, Titch McTonnel) to get a recommondation for his appointment.
Pajit Ai works in the FCC for years, raking in a steady high-ranking government salary, and pretends to be independent of his past life as a lawyer for Berizon. Ultimately, though, he votes in the stated interest of Berizon and companies like Berizon, claiming that it's in the best interest of the public and everyone wants it (even though nobody in the public really does and demonstrates it through millions of "fake" public FCC comments).
After his work is done, and his term is up, Pajit Ai is "coincidentally" snatched back up by his old employer Berizon, now in a much higher position with a much higher salary and bigger benefits/bonus package than he had before, as his meaningful experience as Chairman of the FCC surely makes him very valuable to Berizon (but surely not because of anything he did to favor Berizon while employed there... Surely).
Edit: For people who want to learn more about this phenomenon, it's called the Revolving Door (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)), and it's a very well-documented phenomenon in the United States and around the world. The premise of the Revolving Door is that the government frequently hires industry professionals as regulators of that same industry, who then eventually go on to be hired again as industry professionals due to their experience as government regulators. When you add in the influence industries have over appointments of government regulators for their industry, a clear pattern of how companies like... ahem... Berizon influence the regulation of their own industry via the FCC.