Hacker News Reader

Comment by Bud | Hacker News Reader

Of course, once the right-wing gets its way on net neutrality, insuring that corporations can do whatever they want, they will then ALSO argue, as soon as Republicans hold the White House again, that the government has to be able to regulate the Internet as well, in order to make the world safe for Jesus and protect us from the terrorists.

This BS about opposing government control really just means they oppose government control that comes from Democrats.

View on HN

>as soon as Republicans hold the White House again, that the government has to be able to regulate the Internet as well, in order to make the world safe for Jesus and protect us from the terrorists.

I don't agree with the political "back and forth" that is prevalent on both sides of the spectrum, but certainly this could have been rephrased to be a bit more objective.

Unfortunately on the Internet, Republican has become synonymous with racist radical Christian.

It's not without cause.

ummm I'd just prefer neither. I cringe to think of net neutrality in place next time there is a Republican majority.

The energy being applied advocating net neutrality could be a lot better spent lobbying for real freedom in the telecom space and undo'ing the legally enforced monopolies there.

I upvoted you because I agree that this true of many/most conservatives, especially those with an actual political career. But it's sad that this is the case. And it's certainly not by itself a very good argument for net neutrality or government control.

I agree that corporate rapaciousness and Republicans' pattern of serial lying is not a reason to support net neutrality. Net neutrality must stand on its own merits. I feel it does; others obviously will disagree. :) My only point was, it's laughable to think that Republicans are telling the truth about this, or to believe they will keep their hands off the Internet once they have enough power to mess with it again. I believe the recent historical record provides incontrovertible proof of this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com