Comment by cookiecaper | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cookiecaper | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This only works with people who are already anti-corporate. A normal conservative would say "Because they're entitled to run their business and use their property as they see fit, and if you don't like what they're offering, you don't have to buy it."

The much better argument is that BigCos are seeking to establish a cartel for the primary purpose of excluding entrepreneurship and limiting consumer choice. Emphasize the importance of the internet as a free platform for the market and that net non-neutrality allows an undue influence over that market to whoever the local telecom provider is.

This is very real, because the main driver of interest for net non-neutrality from the ISP side is the possibility of protecting cable subscriptions. On that front, it's tech giants v. telecom and entertainment giants.

Over 30% of Disney's gross revenue comes from ESPN (yes, really!), and most of that revenue comes from cable subscriptions. Anecdotally, typical-speed internet access will only consume around 30% of the average consumer's cable bill, meaning a cancellation results in ~70% monthly revenue loss from that customer (bundles, contracts, and packages are used to attempt to control this).

Cordcutting is a very real threat to the established players, directly conflicting with their interest in delivering stable internet services that are sufficiently reliable and speedy to stream videos.

> This only works with people who are already anti-corporate. A normal conservative would say "Because they're entitled to run their business and use their property as they see fit, and if you don't like what they're offering, you don't have to buy it."

This is true, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. In my experience you can't really appeal to many conservatives along any axis, because they're already sold on the "businesses can do whatever they want" paradigm and if you knock down one pillar of that, they'll erect two others in its place. It won't matter to them if the pillars are made of bullshit, and it won't matter if you keep knocking them down, because they've got a seemingly endless supply of weak excuses for corporate misbehavior and authoritarianism. (And, after your discussion, they'll just prop back up all the pillars you knocked down as well.)

So while the point I suspect you were trying to make was "find better ways to appeal to conservatives", what I take away from it is "convince more people to be anti-corporate". Conservatives are a lost cause IMO.

I don't think so. I'm pretty conservative myself. You have to recognize the people who are just cargo culting, of course, and not waste time with them. That's most people no matter what side of the aisle they choose to associate with themselves.

If you can make an argument that supports entrepreneurship without overt hostility to the basis of commerce and capitalism, there's no reason it wouldn't be well-received by people who are actually interested in thinking about these issues and not just repeating what the talking heads say. And there are plenty of conservatives who are that way.

The best way is to show them the inconsistencies in the corporatist party line. It's pretty easy with telco and ISPs. Conservatives typically don't believe government force should be exerted as a shortcut or to favor or disfavor specific enterprises, so why is it fair to give the ISPs free rein when, in many cases, their monopoly is legally enshrined in the municipal code? And so forth.

> You have to recognize the people who are just cargo culting, of course, and not waste time with them.

That's the thing: so much of modern conservatism is just cargo-cult thinking. Lower taxes (esp. wrt the mythical Laffer Curve which is making a comeback now), deregulation, market economies as an intrinsic good as opposed to a tool (which conveniently shields them from criticism). And so on. And that's just on the economics side.

If you operate according to the maxim "that government is best which governs least" the logical conclusion of that is "that government is best which governs not at all", which is basically what we're getting from conservative politics these days.

No, I disagree. You're suggesting that there's no reasonable line of thought that would allow tradeoffs in favor of market economics, low taxes, and deregulation to make sense. If you believe that, then you're the one cargo culting here. Politics is a question of wise tradeoffs, and it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable for people to draw different conclusions about where the tradeoffs should fall.

Conservatives are not anarchists and, generally speaking, can be convinced that government intervention is warranted in many instances, especially when that regulation is needed to keep the market free and fair.

I've found the connecting apolitical issue between conservatives and liberals is that nobody seems to think it's ok for those in positions of privilege and power to exploit those who are less fortunate.

Instead of trying to come to agreement on the solution to this dilemma (which is where the major rift is) I instead focus on agreeing on the perpetrators and the offences - which is an easier thing to come to a consensus on.

The next agreement is that what is most favorable for the exploitative party is that nothing changes and they get to continue doing whatever they have been.

I think that's what needs to happen. The abusers need to be constrained by a fear of a conservative or liberal or other style response to abuse ... any of them rising and being effective. Right now they can bank on everyone arguing over it and continue doing whatever they want.

> In my experience you can't really appeal to many conservatives along any axis, because they're already sold on the "businesses can do whatever they want" paradigm and if you knock down one pillar of that, they'll erect two others in its place

Conservatives definitely understand that businesses do things for profit.

I think when you can point out when and where this particular profit-only motive can hurt your quality of life, then you're getting somewhere.

I agree that for many issues, this is predetermined for ultra conservatives. There are also some who change sides election to election.

Since this is a new topic, there's a new opportunity to educate about it and reach out to those who might be open to learning a little bit of tech knowledge from you.

> So while the point I suspect you were trying to make was "find better ways to appeal to conservatives", what I take away from it is "convince more people to be anti-corporate".

That's too big a goal. Finding a way to appeal to moderate conservatives on this topic is possible. Convincing more people to be anti-corporate is beyond the scope of educating about net neutrality.

> Conservatives are a lost cause IMO.

That's pretty defeatist. I don't know why you comment or try to stop others from educating about net neutrality. If you're really on the side of open internet and you plan to do nothing, the least you can do is be supportive of people's efforts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com