search

dwbrite / ajitvpai.com

ajitvpai.com, a community project exposing Ajit Pai, Chairman of the FCC
http://ajitvpai.com
48 stars 22 forks source link

Sources for the first Paragraph #23

Open adamellsworth opened 7 years ago

adamellsworth commented 7 years ago

There seems to be quite a few contradictions at the onset of the literature.

We can't say we know exactly, but it appears that his intentions might be to make more money for existing ISPs that control the United States. We do know, however, that most of the arguments against Net Neutrality revolve around money.

First, we 'cant say we know' why money is involved on Pai's behalf, then 'we do know' that it is being funneled. Both are provided without any sources.

How do we know what we do and don't know? As tediously epistemological as this this kind of inquiry is, it absolutely needs sources should it be able to hold its ground.

dwbrite commented 7 years ago

We literally can't say we know his intentions (for legal reasons).

We do know that the arguments against net neutrality are mostly regarding money.

These are not contradictory.

You have permission to link to an article about arguments against net neutrality. They're not hard to find.

P.S. Simple speech is often better.

adamellsworth commented 7 years ago

I bring this up publicly because there are infinitely more experienced individuals than you and I in regard to this topic; OSS has such potential in this regard, not only to this site but to others.

Today I watched Washington State's House of Reps pass HB 2200 (yeas, 72; nays, 22 – more here). While there were legitimate concerns for opposition to NN given the strictures of the Title, I mostly saw that those in opposition were poorly informed on the nature of how the internet works. Whether they were paid to conduct the argument in such an ill-conceived fashion or whether they could truly claim ignorance to the subject of NN is immaterial: what's important is that we are able to provide those representatives (as well as the public) of our respective states with some measure of data which directly refutes their position; the better the format we present it in, the more we present them with, and the larger the group that we can explicitly show as in favor of NN then the better off we all are.

So many threads on Reddit are keen to assume that Congressional leadership is a buy-in affair, but if you look at the State level you'll find that the picture isn't as black and white.

That being said, corruption, astroturfing, all that shit: it happens.

We literally can't say we know his intentions (for legal reasons).

We can infer. Congressional contributions are in part made public through immediate or requested means. FOIA are well within our right to request (we have a few months between now and August (September?) when the FCC votes on this officially)

We do know that the arguments against net neutrality are mostly regarding money.

What basis is there for this claim? How complete a portrait can we paint with the public data available?

P.S. Thank you for making this repo public and opening it to further discussion; I hope I haven't deterred you.

dwbrite commented 7 years ago

We literally can't say we know his intentions (for legal reasons).

We can infer...

Maybe we can infer, but I'd rather not tip-toe on the line of slander against a lawyer. That's why I wrote "We can't say we know his intentions."

We do know that the arguments against net neutrality are mostly regarding money.

What basis is there for this claim? How complete a portrait can we paint with the public data available?

I suppose I exaggerated with the word "mostly". Maybe "most legitimate arguments against NN involve money" would be more apt ;)

Here are some sources that list money as reasons, pulled from the top few links of google:

adamellsworth commented 7 years ago

Not to worry.

I'm sorry if I've offended you or diminished your claims; it was not my intention to do either.

Thank you again for starting this repo.

palmerjoshua commented 7 years ago

I also felt like some things could use citations. Wouldn't be a bad idea to do some research to lend us more credibility.

CurtisJNeeleyJr commented 7 years ago

Ajit has spent several years as a lawyer for Verizon, and is seen more as an "ally to [television] broadcasters" than a steward of the FCC.

The above might look better as follows.

Ajit V. Pai Esq. was officially a corporate lawyer for Verizon from 2001 through April 2003(src). Chairman Pai today appears to be looking after Verizon, at&t, and other ISP interests rather than being a steward of private citizen consumers of telecommunications at the FCC.