Video: Xeni on Maddow on Net Neutrality victory


#1

[Permalink]


#2

Excuse me if I hold my applause until after I’ve seen the 332-page document they voted on.


#3

Cat jifs rule. REPRESENT … good job Xeni, seriously.


#4

Oh dear, i took a peak at infowars to see what they had to say. GASP! they hate it! the FCC now has complete and unrestricted control of the internet!


#5

Can’t see the clip on the Maddow site.


#6

As always, it’s a delight to see you on the Maddow.

You have no idea. I work amongst and, out of necessity, interact with a few wingnuts. All week they’ve been asking me if Obama’s coming to take our internets. Just try explaining net neutrality to someone who believes it to be “Obamacare for the internet”

On the other hand it would be helpful, in it’s defense, if the document in question was available for viewing.


#7

Two favorite things, together!


#8

I thought your appearance was good. I mean, you pretty much always speak well.

But I have to say that at first glance of the screenshot, I thought someone had taken some kind of magic marker plugin to the "jif of you, Xeni. All it needs is a pink mustache and a pink cigar and a pink beard and pink alien antennae.


#9

People keep bringing up the length of the document and it’s kinda pissing me off. The original, amended Communications Act of 1934 was 333 pages long. Here, you can read it: http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf. They voted to add ISPs, who were already telecommunications services, into it under Title II (starting at pg 35 ending on p 137). Most of the document will remain unchanged. They are AMENDING a living document that has grown and evolved since 1934 as technologies change, but still use public resources and infrastructure. Of course the damn thing is 332 pages long!


#10

I like Maddow and Xeni, but everytime I watch MSNBC I get the same thought: “Crap, our side has its own version of FOX.”


#11

If I follow you, someone else must have chosen that look for her, but they didn’t go all the way, but her appearance was good enough for you?

Do you remember what she was talking about?


#12

I apologize. The word “appearance” has a double meaning — I meant that she spoke with clear analogies (dog versus cat gifs) and made her point well, even if she pronounces “gif” the wrong way :stuck_out_tongue:


#13

Saw you, thought my TV color had gone out.


#14

Do you honestly think 332 pages is that long? Oh for fuck’s sake. I’ll be reading twice as much this weekend for school and I’m not even worried. It’s not that hard. Do you think scholarly reading requires you to read every single word, very slowly, in your head, or something?

Not to mention that it’s going to be especially easier if you’re well-versed in the language of these sorts of documents – which you are not, most likely, but I bet you also won’t take that into consideration if you do get your hands on the document.


#16

I bet if you tried a little harder you could be just a little more presumptuous and condescending.

Since the summaries of what the FCC allegedly voted on have consisted of a few sentences, 332 pages is plenty long to hide all sorts of legal mischief. Most of the intellectual property cases I prosecute hinge on a couple phrases in a 40-80 page patent document.

I can’t imagine how people develop such trust in government that they would cheer the passage of a body of legislation/regulation of any size they haven’t been allowed to see.


#17

If the GOP and Comcast is opposed, then I’m for it.

Not sure why you find government so fundamentally untrustworthy, but have no problem with finding gigantic, lobbyist-filled corporations like Verizon to be worthy of your trust.

And not to worry, the lawyers will soon get to have at this with all of the force that cash-laden conglomerates can muster. It will find its way to the SC, and everyone will know everything before it is over. And their legal fees at $1000 an hour (just like their costs for lobbying) will all be tax-deductible for the ISP’s.


#18

That doesn’t matter! All legislation should fit on a postcard, and be written in words even I can understand! Tax code bad! Obamacare bad!


#19

I’m glad that Xeni framed this as Big Corps vs. The People (and even specifically named Comcast and Time-Warner). Interesting how the Maddow seems more or less allergic to that binary, framing the battle instead in two other ways: as big corps fighting against each other (symbolized by wrestling gorillas), and then as easy-target Glenn Beck fighting against, er, aliens? Whatever, that Glenn Beck, boy oh boy, he sure is whacky!! :confused:

Then there’s the two-minutes-or-so time limit for any issue, allowing for little more than shallow-as-a-plastic-baby-pool analysis.

Same reasons I can’t watch anything on corporate tv, including Melissa Harris Perry.


#20

Actually, I don’t think there is anything wrong with legislation being straightforward and aimed at as broad an audience as possible, given that we supposedly live in a democracy. The more you jargon legislation up, the fewer people are going to know what is going on with their government. That seems important to me, more people knowing what’s going on…


#21

It was strange to see Rachel Maddow apologizing for covering net neutrality at all, as if it weren’t important and she were imposing on the audience in asking them to pay attention. Does that really represent her demographic? That’s surprising.