Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
comment by mk
mk  ·  2048 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

I see the ability for us citizens to use the internet unfettered as important as their unfettered use of roads. IMO it is now a fundamental component of modern civil society. In that sense, I think 'Net Neutrality' is an appropriate term. I don't want to see my bandwidth determined by content.

On a related note, IMHO the US needs to break out of the public/private debate, and concentrate more on the ends than the means. I strongly believe that it is a conveniently simplistic debate that has been co-opted and promoted by our bipolar political infrastructure. IMO we need to re-imagine both government and private entities, with a eye toward outcomes rather than ideological consistency. I worry that we argue about the wrong things, and let better futures pass us by.




rob05c  ·  2048 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    our bipolar political infrastructure
America's First Past The Post voting system rewards representatives who appeal to ideologues. That's one of the problems.
_refugee_  ·  2047 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I agree in that I find our current voting method problematic. I'd much rather we went for a Borda count sort of method.

user-inactivated  ·  2048 days ago  ·  link  ·  

it doesn't, really. it rewards pragmatic representatives that appeal to the center and compete for campaign contributions. ideology plays no part except as post-hoc justification.

rob05c  ·  2048 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I disagree. Moderates are not insignificant, but moderates often become disinterested in both of the two extremist parties. Although negative campaigns portraying the other party's extremism can counteract this.

But I think extremism is more often rewarded in practice. For example, the rallying Fundamentalist Christian demographic in 2000, and the radically extremist Tea Party in 2010.