> “Comcast's purchase of NBC concentrated far too much power in one massive entity that is trying to tell the voters what to think and what to do,” Trump said. “Deals like this destroy democracy and we'll look at breaking that deal up and other deals like that. That should never, ever have been approved in the first place, they're trying to poison the mind of the American voter."
My prognostication is that when they "look at" stopping it (if they do) they will find what everyone who has worked in the world he's entering found out long ago: it's only possible through strong regulation. Fine, he'll think: I'll just embolden the regulators. This, I think, will be when the people who elected him will start to realize how business is done and that, just like in their private lives, they've bought into yet another CEO's fanciful promises that once again turned out to be self-serving in their entirety.
My wife and I were discussing issues like this tonight. We spoke about the fact that when most politicians make promises, you can point to specific votes or speeches during non campaign times to say "Yes, it seems like he/she is really against this." With Trump though, we have no comparison, he's never served any office before. The only thing we have is campaign promises and they mean so little. So journalists probably have a hard time deciding whether something he said is true or not.
Assume he's a populist and it makes sense. Regulations, in general, are unpopular with much of the electorate. But in this case, with the once-dismantled AT&T becoming big again, people may see the merger as hostile to their interests. If reddit is any indication it's fairly unpopular.
People probably feel like regulations only apply to the little guy because the big players just weasel out of them. So reducing regulation in general while blocking a deal like this isn't inconsistent with a populist viewpoint.
I haven't followed this deal that closely - but I believe it had significant antitrust headwinds before Trump said anything. Generally, if ATT wants to buy anything thats large - I would be concerned about a decrease in competition.
I don't care about yet another stupid merger, its the net neutrality weakening that should concern everyone. In the end whether AT&Time is your ISP matters little if you only have one choice for ISP and they charge you to access Google special.
I stopped reading Ars Technica when they gave Trump an F on technology issues and Clinton an overall B+, including a B- on "privacy and security". I mean, how much more partisan can you get than that? The woman was under investigation for leaking classified emails and using an unprotected email server for fucks sake.
When a media outlet does something like that, I just can't take anything else they report on seriously.
Anything not-pro-clinton gets downvoted without explanation on any social media platform I've seen, including HN (which is supposed to be less biased, more objective, and superior to the other networks).
what would the email server have to do with policy on technology like net neutrality and infrastructure and a lot more? how come trump supporters reasoning for anything doesn't go to past the word 'emails'? It's her versus mister 'cyber'. perhaps he'll appoint baron as head of 'the security aspect of cyber'.
[+] [-] ixtli|9 years ago|reply
My prognostication is that when they "look at" stopping it (if they do) they will find what everyone who has worked in the world he's entering found out long ago: it's only possible through strong regulation. Fine, he'll think: I'll just embolden the regulators. This, I think, will be when the people who elected him will start to realize how business is done and that, just like in their private lives, they've bought into yet another CEO's fanciful promises that once again turned out to be self-serving in their entirety.
[+] [-] beedogs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|9 years ago|reply
Cop-out in the subtitle followed by thirty paragraphs of navel gazing.
[+] [-] giarc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] croon|9 years ago|reply
> But Trump's promise to ...... won't necessarily be fulfilled.
[+] [-] markwaldron|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trynumber9|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmorici|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slowmotiony|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bpchaps|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonu|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CyberDildonics|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akerro|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldcode|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fej|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _Codemonkeyism|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|9 years ago|reply
When a media outlet does something like that, I just can't take anything else they report on seriously.
here's the article: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/when-graded-on-te...
[+] [-] Jtsummers|9 years ago|reply
1) The analysis/grading was based on policy positions.
2) You're just wasting your keypresses if you honestly can't tell the difference between reporting someone else's work and their own analysis.
3) The actual report card for those interested [1].
[0] http://www.engine.is
[1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571681753c44d835a440c...
[+] [-] manicdee|9 years ago|reply
Republican fanatics keep missing the part that comes next, or claiming that the lack of conviction is due to the system being rigged.
And of course no mention of Bush/Cheney and the private email server saga.
[+] [-] feelix|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thesimpsons1022|9 years ago|reply