Re: Re: That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...
Nice try at propping up the scam, but there are clear and obvious differences between the 5G plan cooked up by former NSC member AF Brig. Gen. Robert Spalding and an early draft of a presidential executive order.
Some of these are matters of content: the spectrum plan had direct relevance to the FCC's jurisdiction over spectrum rights and broadband deployment, but the regulation of Internet social platform speech policies is not under FCC jurisdiction. I can show you where the Comms Act directs the FCC to manage spectrum and broadband deployment, but you can't show me where the Comms Act says the FCC is supposed to regulate Facebook.
Another difference is the maturity of the proposal. The 5G plan was presented to a broad group of government stakeholders (the NSC) in a slide deck that was intended to elicit discussion. Nobody knows how early the alleged White House order is, who (if anyone) it was presented do, and what its status is with respect to discussion and revision. So it's nothing more than a rumor and certainly not a concrete proposal.
And then there's the broader question of FCC's place in the federal government structure. Contrary to Techdirt's claims, the FCC doesn't report to the White House, it reports to Congress. The president nominates the commissioners and chooses one of them to be the chairman. He can't fire a commissioner, and all he can do with the chairmanship is transfer it to another commissioner. It's not the FCC's business to comment on possible executive orders and no reason to believe it sees them. In fact, there are good legal reasons to believe they don't.
Finally, you've made a claim about "normal practice" but you've only offered one incident in support. Statistically, one data point doesn't prove a trend. In fact, the 5G case was the outlier and what's happening here is the norm. You can't show me a single instance in which an FCC chairman has ever commented on an early draft of a possible White House executive order. The 5G plan was certainly not related to any executive order.
So your story is a farce. The claim that the FCC is "oddly silent" is false. Techdirt is either clueless or deliberately lying.
Prove me wrong with evidence if you can; and if you can't, you should take down the story or, bette yet, leave it up and label is as false.
In summary, it is not normal practice for the heads of federal regulatory agencies to speak to the media on early drafts of possible White House executive orders. The FCC is independent of the White House by law and is not involved in the drafting of executive orders.
This post displays massive ignorance of the structure of the federal government and a sad fixation on conspiratorial reasoning. It's the political equivalent of hypochondria.
Even if your imagined state of affairs is accidentally true, there's no particular reason for any government official to comment publicly on a draft document.
Kindly refrain from opining about what I do and don't know; that always embarrasses you.
Your incapacity to discern a difference between a slide deck and a whispered rumor says a lot. If the heads of all the regulatory agencies went insane over every rumor about some stray thought that is alleged to have crossed the president's mind, they wouldn't have time to do their actual jobs.
Admit it, your Chief Conspiracy Officer is trying to make something out of nothing. That's his job, granted, but this is a spectacular fail.
"This alleged plan - that we only know about because of speculation by CNN - will never see the light of day. The Rivada 5G plan exists as an actual written document that has been shared."
And that's what I'm still saying. The 5G plan existed as an actual written document from the beginning, but not even the commenters at CNN and Politico who claim knowledge of it have seen it. CNN goes the farthest in claiming to have seen a written summary, but that claim remains unsupported by evidence.
We can continue this discussion when you have some something more than a whispered rumor.
People commented on the tangible PowerPoint presentation Axios shared on the 5G plan, not simply on rumors that such a plan was in the works. Nobody has published a tangible version of the alleged executive order.
As I said at the beginning, that's big difference.
Axios shared a PowerPoint of the plan favored by Commerce Department official Earl Comstock to nationalize 5G networks. People who can read saw it here
While CNN - and only CNN - claims to have seen a draft summary of the alleged executive order, it has not seen fit to share it.
So Karl Bode is upset that the chairman of the FCC has not publicly commented on a non-public plan for an unlawful order directing the FCC to censor Internet speech. This is as fine an example of delusional thinking as we're ever going to see.
The appropriate way for a high-ranking government official to react to an unlawful and unpublished plan is through direct and private communication with the author. Unlike conspiracy-oriented blogs such as this one, the FCC is not funded by click bait.
This alleged plan - that we only know about because of speculation by CNN - will never see the light of day. The Rivada 5G plan exists as an actual written document that has been shared.
It looks like Ayyadurai has won. Masnick has to give him free advertising after spending a small fortune to defend his speech rights and Ayyadurai doesn't have to give up his criminal ways.
This appears to put Masnick in the same position as an artist whose work has been pirated who spends heavily in a lawsuit that fails to stop the abuse of his speech rights.
As expected, Article 13 passed by a huge margin - 348 for, 274 against - and Techdirt promptly declares the vote kills the "open" Internet. This is a predictable consequence of the lobbying that Silicon Valley firms did for net neutrality laws in Europe in 2015 and 2016.
If you repeatedly go the government seeking favors for one economic sector and it grants your wish, you can't really be surprised when another economic sector seeks to rebalance the scales. Consumers got their redress with GDPR, and now artists have won a victory.
The "open" Internet has always been a bit of a scam; open means operators of web services are free to do whatever they want without meaningful restrictions. This is the system we have in the US for Big Tech, but not for telecom or for artists. And even in the US, the data brokering practices of Big Tech firms are under the microscope.
Just like the last minute horse-trading that helped secure the 74 vote margin of victory, over the long term lawmakers tend to balance favors for intersecting business sectors. Silicon Valley now has a losing streak going in Europe so who knows, maybe it will win the next fight.
But I suspect we're going to see some US action against Big Tech before we see the EP doing it any favors. The sociopathy of the "open" Internet has become annoying.
On the post: The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump's Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech
Re: Re: That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...
Nice try at propping up the scam, but there are clear and obvious differences between the 5G plan cooked up by former NSC member AF Brig. Gen. Robert Spalding and an early draft of a presidential executive order.
Some of these are matters of content: the spectrum plan had direct relevance to the FCC's jurisdiction over spectrum rights and broadband deployment, but the regulation of Internet social platform speech policies is not under FCC jurisdiction. I can show you where the Comms Act directs the FCC to manage spectrum and broadband deployment, but you can't show me where the Comms Act says the FCC is supposed to regulate Facebook.
Another difference is the maturity of the proposal. The 5G plan was presented to a broad group of government stakeholders (the NSC) in a slide deck that was intended to elicit discussion. Nobody knows how early the alleged White House order is, who (if anyone) it was presented do, and what its status is with respect to discussion and revision. So it's nothing more than a rumor and certainly not a concrete proposal.
And then there's the broader question of FCC's place in the federal government structure. Contrary to Techdirt's claims, the FCC doesn't report to the White House, it reports to Congress. The president nominates the commissioners and chooses one of them to be the chairman. He can't fire a commissioner, and all he can do with the chairmanship is transfer it to another commissioner. It's not the FCC's business to comment on possible executive orders and no reason to believe it sees them. In fact, there are good legal reasons to believe they don't.
Finally, you've made a claim about "normal practice" but you've only offered one incident in support. Statistically, one data point doesn't prove a trend. In fact, the 5G case was the outlier and what's happening here is the norm. You can't show me a single instance in which an FCC chairman has ever commented on an early draft of a possible White House executive order. The 5G plan was certainly not related to any executive order.
So your story is a farce. The claim that the FCC is "oddly silent" is false. Techdirt is either clueless or deliberately lying.
Prove me wrong with evidence if you can; and if you can't, you should take down the story or, bette yet, leave it up and label is as false.
On the post: The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump's Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech
That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...
In summary, it is not normal practice for the heads of federal regulatory agencies to speak to the media on early drafts of possible White House executive orders. The FCC is independent of the White House by law and is not involved in the drafting of executive orders.
This post displays massive ignorance of the structure of the federal government and a sad fixation on conspiratorial reasoning. It's the political equivalent of hypochondria.
On the post: The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump's Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it's not Karl, it's the president of his fan club; close enough.
On the post: The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump's Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if your imagined state of affairs is accidentally true, there's no particular reason for any government official to comment publicly on a draft document.
On the post: The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump's Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Kindly refrain from opining about what I do and don't know; that always embarrasses you.
Your incapacity to discern a difference between a slide deck and a whispered rumor says a lot. If the heads of all the regulatory agencies went insane over every rumor about some stray thought that is alleged to have crossed the president's mind, they wouldn't have time to do their actual jobs.
Admit it, your Chief Conspiracy Officer is trying to make something out of nothing. That's his job, granted, but this is a spectacular fail.
On the post: The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump's Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
who claim knowledge of it-->
who claim knowledge of a Trump executive order on Internet censorship
On the post: The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump's Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is what I said in my first comment, Karl:
"This alleged plan - that we only know about because of speculation by CNN - will never see the light of day. The Rivada 5G plan exists as an actual written document that has been shared."
And that's what I'm still saying. The 5G plan existed as an actual written document from the beginning, but not even the commenters at CNN and Politico who claim knowledge of it have seen it. CNN goes the farthest in claiming to have seen a written summary, but that claim remains unsupported by evidence.
We can continue this discussion when you have some something more than a whispered rumor.
On the post: The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump's Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, you're Karl.
On the post: The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump's Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech
Re: Re:
People commented on the tangible PowerPoint presentation Axios shared on the 5G plan, not simply on rumors that such a plan was in the works. Nobody has published a tangible version of the alleged executive order.
As I said at the beginning, that's big difference.
Once again, Karl, you're busted.
On the post: The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump's Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech
Re: Re:
Of course you say that.
On the post: The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump's Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech
BTW Karl, why don't you just post your comments using your real name rather than signing them with that cute little "try again" thing?
On the post: The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump's Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech
Axios shared a PowerPoint of the plan favored by Commerce Department official Earl Comstock to nationalize 5G networks. People who can read saw it here
While CNN - and only CNN - claims to have seen a draft summary of the alleged executive order, it has not seen fit to share it.
On the post: The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump's Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech
That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...
So Karl Bode is upset that the chairman of the FCC has not publicly commented on a non-public plan for an unlawful order directing the FCC to censor Internet speech. This is as fine an example of delusional thinking as we're ever going to see.
The appropriate way for a high-ranking government official to react to an unlawful and unpublished plan is through direct and private communication with the author. Unlike conspiracy-oriented blogs such as this one, the FCC is not funded by click bait.
This alleged plan - that we only know about because of speculation by CNN - will never see the light of day. The Rivada 5G plan exists as an actual written document that has been shared.
Big difference.
On the post: Why Is Congress Moving Forward With Its Plan To Encourage Copyright Trolling?
This post is so wrong
Go read David Newhoff about all things Masnick gets wrong about the CASE Act. This is a pathetic misinterpretation even by Techdirt's low standards.
https://illusionofmore.com/masnick-calls-case-a-big-media-bill/
On the post: Why Is Congress Moving Forward With Its Plan To Encourage Copyright Trolling?
Re: Abolish copyright.
This is what passes for reasonable on Techdirt.
On the post: Our Legal Dispute With Shiva Ayyadurai Is Now Over
Is this a win or a loss?
It looks like Ayyadurai has won. Masnick has to give him free advertising after spending a small fortune to defend his speech rights and Ayyadurai doesn't have to give up his criminal ways.
This appears to put Masnick in the same position as an artist whose work has been pirated who spends heavily in a lawsuit that fails to stop the abuse of his speech rights.
Truly a sad thing for free speech.
On the post: New Report: Germany Caved To France On Copyright In A Deal For Russian Gas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but you lose. You can't take credit for past behavior until you manager to summon the courage to use a unique name of some kind.
As far as I can tell, you've never handed a single ass to any person at any time.
Prove me wrong if you can, but be warned I'm asking for real evidence instead of your florid imagination.
On the post: EU Puts An End To The Open Internet: Link Taxes And Filters Approved By Just 5 Votes
Techdirt T-shirt
Perhaps the time has come for a new TD t-shirt:
"I asked for Title II and all I got was copyright reform!"
Could be snappier, I suppose.
On the post: EU Puts An End To The Open Internet: Link Taxes And Filters Approved By Just 5 Votes
The end of the Internet as we know it...or not.
As expected, Article 13 passed by a huge margin - 348 for, 274 against - and Techdirt promptly declares the vote kills the "open" Internet. This is a predictable consequence of the lobbying that Silicon Valley firms did for net neutrality laws in Europe in 2015 and 2016.
If you repeatedly go the government seeking favors for one economic sector and it grants your wish, you can't really be surprised when another economic sector seeks to rebalance the scales. Consumers got their redress with GDPR, and now artists have won a victory.
The "open" Internet has always been a bit of a scam; open means operators of web services are free to do whatever they want without meaningful restrictions. This is the system we have in the US for Big Tech, but not for telecom or for artists. And even in the US, the data brokering practices of Big Tech firms are under the microscope.
Just like the last minute horse-trading that helped secure the 74 vote margin of victory, over the long term lawmakers tend to balance favors for intersecting business sectors. Silicon Valley now has a losing streak going in Europe so who knows, maybe it will win the next fight.
But I suspect we're going to see some US action against Big Tech before we see the EP doing it any favors. The sociopathy of the "open" Internet has become annoying.
On the post: New Report: Germany Caved To France On Copyright In A Deal For Russian Gas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL.
As if anyone can tell one anonymous coward from all the others.
Next >>