This is interesting. I wonder why only Republicans are targeted consistently for these types of laws that are blatantly bad for consumers and why it works on them. However, I am sure money has been offered to Democrats but what's the reason it never sticks?
It sticks just fine. In this example the Democrats oppose this one issue, but voted to give the ISPs billions in stimulus funding and protected them from lawsuits by passing the privacy killing CISA bill. You don't need to support 100% of their interests to be in their pockets.
The sad truth is that most politicians aren't going to win elections without corporate money.
Think about it this way: the attention of voters is limited and expensive. Therefore communicating with them is a costly commodity. Right now it is controlled by media organizations, and the only way for politicians to pay that cost is (1) out of their own pockets (if they're independently wealthy), (2) out of corporate pockets, or (3) out of the pockets of excited and motivated party partisans.
Most people don't like (1) for obvious reasons -- it's easy to bash the rich as being elitist and out of touch. (3) has a chicken-and-egg problem of how a politician can reach people if they don't have any money initially to bootstrap the process. It also leads to politicians saying really controversial and divisive things to get the base excited -- the base's interests don't always align with the general electorate's.
So either we actually enact strong campaign finance reform (good luck getting that past the Supreme Court), we stop electing politicians that took corporate money, or we have robust public funding for elections so politicians don't need corporate money.
Some people genuinely believe free markets are the best thing for consumers. I’m all for net neutrality but I don’t think every politician is a sell out for voting against, they were voting according to their beliefs.
Democrats are beholden to Wall St, Hollywood/music (see: RIAA), and special-interest groups. Silicon Valley also seems to be getting better at influencing Democrats.
It definitely is lopsided, and Republicans are clearly more anti-consumer, but no national politician survives by betraying big donors.
Democrats have their own corporate patrons, like the healthcare companies.
They were just as happy to sell you out when they voted for the ACA (which is working for now, but will eventually fuck over a lot of middle class Americans who aren't getting insurance through their employer).
> Additionally, it’s important to note that the communications industry is one of the largest lobbying groups in US history; internet providers and the telephone companies before them are notorious for spreading wealth across the aisle. Regardless, one party seems more responsive to the industry’s demands.
Ok, so ISPs give money to all of Congress, and every single representative in the list is a Republican. Sounds like the vote happened along party lines, then? But does that not invalidate the article's entire thesis? Maybe if they listed the representatives who voted against the bill, and showed that there is a significant difference in contributions, it would support their thesis. But they don't do that.
> But does that not invalidate the article's entire thesis? Maybe if they listed the representatives who voted against the bill, and showed that there is a significant difference in contributions, it would support their thesis. But they don't do that.
A significant difference would not so much support their thesis as fail to support the negation of their thesis.
What articles such as this almost never consider is that donors might choose which politicians to donate to and how much to donate based on the publicly stated positions of the politician and the politician's party, that politician's past votes, and the general political philosophy of the politician and party.
If we banned all political donations, and put a limit on political spending by the candidates or on behalf of the candidates, switching to funding campaigns entirely out of public money, a bill like this would STILL be largely supported by Republicans and largely opposed by Democrats because of their philosophical differences.
There are multiple bills in recent years that have benefitted ISPs. They also were in favor of CISA to avoid any possible legal issues from a disregard of your privacy rights, and that passed with large support from the Democrats. Individual bills can follow party lines, but they're all helping the ISPs.
This is from quite a bit earlier in 2017. It is just a USA thing, Congress overturned FCC privacy rules, so now internet service providers in the USA are allowed to sell their subscribers' browsing data to third parties.
(Edit: Amazingly the four previous people who responded to you seem to have all gotten it wrong)
It potentially reduces the ability for new web companies to succeed in reaching US consumers. It will also enable ISP's to extort existing web companies and lead to higher prices for consumers.
Unless pure exposure is your goal it seems counterproductive to associate an issue with a political party. As with climate change, people who might otherwise be open to hearing arguments now turn their brains off and don't engage with the topic beyond pushing what's supported by "their side".
While I generally agree that members of Congress listen more to lobbyists than to constituents, the idea that money flows this transactionally is just absurd.
You yourself have probably given to a member of Congress because they did something rather than so that they will do something. I gave to a member of Congress because they spoke out for Gun control, not because I called them and told Them that if they speak out I will write them a check.
That’s what makes this kind of uncontextualized data pretty disheartening. You’re showing some correlations, conflating it with causation, and disaffecting the electorate (which, in turn makes the lobbyists more powerful)
This is a little bit less comic book villain-y than it seems. This is an attempt not to get rid of privacy protections, but to return to the status quo circa 2014, where privacy was handled using more general laws enforced by the FTC. This is typical in other countries, where the telecom regulator usually does not take a leading role in consumer protection, leaving that to the appropriate agency. Many countries, for example, have an agency focused on privacy. Historically, that role in the US has been filled by the FTC.
> This is an attempt not to get rid of privacy protections, but to return to the status quo circa 2014, where privacy was handled using more general laws enforced by the FTC.
Wasn't there a ruling by the 9th Circuit that said the FTC does not have jurisdiction over common carriers, and so, at least in the 9th Circuit, this does not return to the 2014 status quo until after the FCC completes their killing of the 2015 Open Internet Order?
I never really thought about it, but it does make sense as something that falls under the FTC’s purview: you can only have a functional free market if corporations can keep trade secrets from one-another; can negotiate without laying all their own cards on the table; etc. Privacy is a prerequisite to (non-state-owned) capitalism.
Maybe this is an opportunity for some of you to setup the next gen of ISPs that do not track. I am not sure what is the feasibility for this in the states but it is certainly possible in UK (I think). This is a nice niche to carve and build from there with services that cater to the customers broadband needs and not to milk more money from personal data. For people like me, this is going to be an easy sale.
A&A already market themselves on this basis. The problem is it's not cheap, and they're constrained by the RIP type acts too, so pure "no track" is actually illegal.
Did future-you subscribe to the Comcast VPN Access package? I think it's only an extra $25/mo, and they let you choose from 20 vetted VPN providers. /s
A perfect example of democracy not working and corporate capture in full display. You are sold some idealized version of an enlightened progressive society where your one vote in 4 years is of fundamental value when in the real world something altogether regressive is in action, and this is on display across industries.
Its appears it's not your vote but money that influences outcomes on a day to day basis, so back to quasi feudalism dressed up. Adam smith spoke about this, anti-regulation propaganda is transparently self serving by entrenched interests. Markets are not magic, there is no invisible hand and there is no perfect information.
Markets are created by people and like everything else in civilized life they need rules and regulation and if you want to adhere to democratic principles and build progressive societies they need to reflect the wishes and interests of the people.
Every informed person knew the way the electoral college worked before the election, including both major candidates and their parties. Anyone who didn't know had no excuse for not knowing, because it is basic civic knowledge and trivially easy to look up if one is curious. Claiming the popular vote "didn't count" is disingenuous and you know it.
[+] [-] jenga22|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smallnamespace|8 years ago|reply
Think about it this way: the attention of voters is limited and expensive. Therefore communicating with them is a costly commodity. Right now it is controlled by media organizations, and the only way for politicians to pay that cost is (1) out of their own pockets (if they're independently wealthy), (2) out of corporate pockets, or (3) out of the pockets of excited and motivated party partisans.
Most people don't like (1) for obvious reasons -- it's easy to bash the rich as being elitist and out of touch. (3) has a chicken-and-egg problem of how a politician can reach people if they don't have any money initially to bootstrap the process. It also leads to politicians saying really controversial and divisive things to get the base excited -- the base's interests don't always align with the general electorate's.
So either we actually enact strong campaign finance reform (good luck getting that past the Supreme Court), we stop electing politicians that took corporate money, or we have robust public funding for elections so politicians don't need corporate money.
[+] [-] xupybd|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joewrong|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smt88|8 years ago|reply
Democrats are beholden to Wall St, Hollywood/music (see: RIAA), and special-interest groups. Silicon Valley also seems to be getting better at influencing Democrats.
It definitely is lopsided, and Republicans are clearly more anti-consumer, but no national politician survives by betraying big donors.
[+] [-] antisthenes|8 years ago|reply
They were just as happy to sell you out when they voted for the ACA (which is working for now, but will eventually fuck over a lot of middle class Americans who aren't getting insurance through their employer).
[+] [-] tomrod|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronbrethorst|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Camillo|8 years ago|reply
Ok, so ISPs give money to all of Congress, and every single representative in the list is a Republican. Sounds like the vote happened along party lines, then? But does that not invalidate the article's entire thesis? Maybe if they listed the representatives who voted against the bill, and showed that there is a significant difference in contributions, it would support their thesis. But they don't do that.
[+] [-] tzs|8 years ago|reply
A significant difference would not so much support their thesis as fail to support the negation of their thesis.
What articles such as this almost never consider is that donors might choose which politicians to donate to and how much to donate based on the publicly stated positions of the politician and the politician's party, that politician's past votes, and the general political philosophy of the politician and party.
If we banned all political donations, and put a limit on political spending by the candidates or on behalf of the candidates, switching to funding campaigns entirely out of public money, a bill like this would STILL be largely supported by Republicans and largely opposed by Democrats because of their philosophical differences.
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smt88|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w4tson|8 years ago|reply
What way if any will affect non US residents?
[+] [-] bo1024|8 years ago|reply
(Edit: Amazingly the four previous people who responded to you seem to have all gotten it wrong)
[+] [-] discordance|8 years ago|reply
Your data has probably been sold a hundred time over already by US companies.
[+] [-] pkaye|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maccam94|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] warent|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tudorw|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] srj|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microcolonel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] booleanbetrayal|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjoh|8 years ago|reply
You yourself have probably given to a member of Congress because they did something rather than so that they will do something. I gave to a member of Congress because they spoke out for Gun control, not because I called them and told Them that if they speak out I will write them a check.
That’s what makes this kind of uncontextualized data pretty disheartening. You’re showing some correlations, conflating it with causation, and disaffecting the electorate (which, in turn makes the lobbyists more powerful)
[+] [-] rayiner|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|8 years ago|reply
Wasn't there a ruling by the 9th Circuit that said the FTC does not have jurisdiction over common carriers, and so, at least in the 9th Circuit, this does not return to the 2014 status quo until after the FCC completes their killing of the 2015 Open Internet Order?
[+] [-] derefr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rrhd|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] _pdp_|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ealexhudson|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] animex|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dantillberg|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colejohnson66|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] losteric|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Joeri|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tinus_hn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw2016|8 years ago|reply
Its appears it's not your vote but money that influences outcomes on a day to day basis, so back to quasi feudalism dressed up. Adam smith spoke about this, anti-regulation propaganda is transparently self serving by entrenched interests. Markets are not magic, there is no invisible hand and there is no perfect information.
Markets are created by people and like everything else in civilized life they need rules and regulation and if you want to adhere to democratic principles and build progressive societies they need to reflect the wishes and interests of the people.
[+] [-] alexanderdmitri|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrillgore|8 years ago|reply
One day, GOP, this will haunt you.
[+] [-] shmerl|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielovichdk|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] free_everybody|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alphaalpha101|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ispeakcomputer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twblalock|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smt88|8 years ago|reply