Whitehouse.gov Net Neutrality Petition Passes 95k Signatures | Hacker News Reader

Whitehouse.gov Net Neutrality Petition Passes 95k Signatures

petitions.whitehouse.gov

32 pointsSkyMarshal15 comments

Have any of these petitions actually resulted in significant policy changes? Seems to me that the system is just a way to pacify would-be protesters by giving them an outlet for their discontent that has a low barrier to entry.

Who knows what's going on behind the scenes, but as you say the barrier to entry is low, and yet the vast majority of petitions still don't reach the 100,000 threshhold, so that gives the Whitehouse some insight into peoples' priorities, at least among netizens.

Also, I have heard that Congress has a rule of thumb - if more than three of their constituents take the time to write and mail an actual letter about the same topic, and they're not looney's but serious-minded people, that signals it's a real issue amongst their constituents and something that needs to be on their radar.

I suspect this petition system works similarly.

...the vast majority of petitions still don't reach the 100,000 threshhold...

That's right, only the important petitions get that many signatures:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-justin-bieb...

[currently at 233,220]

Calling, works, and is far more effective than clicking a button, says Alexis Ohanian, in this fireside chat at the NationBuilder HQ.

Uploaded a couple of days ago: http://youtu.be/ybXKBJ0xDNU?t=10m35s

No doubt, because the barrier to entry is much higher. Someone who bothers calling has to be really interested in the issue. Focusing on phone calls is effectively a high pass filter for importance to the constituency.

I always thought of the Whitehouse petition system as some form of employee suggestion box. Gets emptied once every quarter and you are lucky if there is actually some intern shifting through it who doesn't just drop everything in the trash.

Less than 5k needed to require a response. If you haven't signed it yet, please do.

Guys, before you jump on this bandwagon, do your research. Common carrier is bad for everyone, including the consumer.

It means that a floor will be set on the price of peering as well as a ceiling, so ISPs that currently peer at no cost will be forced to charge each other and then pass that on to consumers.

I'm a huge fan of Net Neutrality, but common carrier status is not the solution.

Is there a solution that prevents carriers from privileging different types of data but maintains ability to peer at no cost?

Congress can either give the FCC the power to mandate it without common carrier, or congress can simply legislate net neutrality on its own.

But I don't think a solution exists that is soley in the pervue of the executive.

The "Deport Justin Bieber" petition blew past 100K signatures a couple of days ago; I don't see him being told to leave the country yet.

Could it be that these petitions are completely useless?

I think they only promise to respond to petitions that reach the 100K+ signature threshold, not adopt that policy. Pretty much makes sense because 100K isn't all that much in a nation of 300+ million.

It costs little to nothing to participate, and the E(X) is somewhere between 0 and saving Net Neutrality - aka non-negative, no downside - it's not like you lose your firstborn if the petition fails.

And yet the majority of these petitions fail anyway, so the few that do provide some useful signal, even if we can't know the extent to which it influences the decision-making process.

The obvious downside would be the typical slacktivism worry that by allowing an easy, ineffectual way for people to voice their opinions you're reducing the likelihood that they'll bother to go for more difficult but more effective ways; sort of a crowding-out effect for effort.

The signatures are racking up. It's good to see people standing up for net neutrality. Just added mine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com