Someone who works for President Obama does an AMA about Net Neutrality. Top question is about Obama appointing Tom Wheeler. What follows is a slap fight that even an Admin gets involved in. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
206 ups - 0 downs = 206 votes
131 comments submitted at 18:21:03 on Nov 13, 2014 by wfa19
>Great, you scared him off.
>>According to the post he won't be answering questions for another 15 minutes
:D
Not every day you see a Real Genius gif.
This is one of my favorite gifs to use when the popcorn is just overflowing.
.png ಠ_ಠ
Shut up, that's why!
I'll cut you! I'll cut you real' good!
That seems real dangerous.
That's not a gif! I had to stare at it entirely too long to figure that out.
I like this one and this one
SAVED.
I'm going to have Tears for Fears in my head all day now.
I swear every AMA:
Question.
OMG WHY ISN'T THEY ANSWERING!!?!?!? ARE THEY SCARED WE FOUND THEM OUT!!?!?!
They're not answering questions yet dude....
And when they do answer the question:
Sorry bro, not a good enough answer for us! DOWN WITH THE SYSTEM! NICE TRY, UBISOFT blah blah blah blah
And then when will people learn that this means we can ask them ANYTHING?
As if the phrase AMA means that they're entitled to famous people coming out and being like "LOL, that's right, I totally nailed your 17-year-old friend/the president totally screwed the pooch on that one/I'm only a porn star because of daddy issues and I also enjoy manipulating men's emotions. Good one, /u/ZachIsBack95."
And then the whole reddit will raise /u/ZachIsBack95 onto their shoulders and cheer, and henceforth bitcoins will bear a profile of /u/ZachIsBack95, and the Royals will beg for /u/ZachIsBack95 to pitch a game for them next summer, and then Lisa that goddamned bitch will be like "OMG, you're THAT Zach? /u/ZachIsBack95? Wow, if I had known I would have totally gone out with you when you asked, will you ever forgive me?" but it'll be fine because by then he'll be dating Emma Watson.
> when will people learn that this means we can ask them ANYTHING?
I don't think this is the problem so much as it is reddit expects OP to answer everything. These are Hollywood celebrities, bureaucrats, and vacuum cleaner salesmen not 16th century nobility ordained by God; we don't have to be any nicer to them than we are to each other. However, this isn't a tribunal, so they're not obligated to talk about anything other than Rampart.
Per the rest of his comment, I think /u/wilst agrees with you.
:: rides fedora into sunset ::
To be fair, the answer wasn't great. Then again there's no way to answer that question that would satisfy reddit without having some sort of political backlash.
It wasn't the best answer, agreed. But they could have just as easily ignored it outright.
Also the stupid dinosaur question.
This is exactly why we tell people (even the big celebrities) that they cannot post the AMA more than 30 minutes prior to answering questions/start time, otherwise this happens.
Sorry, but there's a lot of stupid people on reddit who don't read the basic shit right in front of their face (like, the time it's starting). Therefore, we have to pull posts sometimes because they post it too early.
So the question was
>How does President Obama justify having appointed Tom Wheeler, a former telecom lobbyist and obvious conflict of interest with his platform of protecting Internet freedom and Net Neutrality?
And the answer was, essentially, we all work for the President and are responsible for implementing his vision. Additionally, Tom is experienced and knowledgeable.
And the neckbeards complain that that was a terrible answer, or that it wasn't answered, when what they really mean is that they disagree with the answer.
On reddit not giving me the answer I want to hear = not answering the question.
I'm wondering what answer they wanted to hear.
"THE JOOS PUT HIM UP TO THIS!"
In reality though his first two were never going to pass, the GOP made that clear. Even with Wheeler, Ted Cruz tried to block him because Wheeler wouldn't give
>greater assurance from President Obama’s nominee that the agency wouldn’t require more funding disclosures for political TV ads.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/sen-ted-cruz-blocks-confirmation-of-tom-wheeler-nominee-for-fcc-chairman/2013/10/17/46dfa67e-3770-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_story.html
Well jeez, that's even more upsetting than the thing everyone's so upset about.
Clearly.
The non-shit answer would've been something like:
"While Tom Wheeler was a telecom lobbyist, that job required an extensive knowledge of the functionality of the Internet in the United States. I assume the President took into account the potential for a conflict of interest and the broad body of experience Mr. Wheeler has and came to the conclusion that his skill set outweighed any potential bias, quite probably after both vetting Wheeler extensively and receiving personal assurances from Tom that he would do whatever was within his power to mitigate how his lobbying experience may have skewed his perspective.
"In most federal executive departments it is considered more important to have skilled and informed executives than it is to assuage fears of bias. Thomas J. Vilsak, secretary of agriculture, a former Iowa Governor, quite clearly also has potential bias in his desire to further the benefit of his former constituents and any political aims he may have. Anthony Foxx, secretary of transportation, is biased in favor of trucking as his Mayorship in Charlotte, North Carolina left him with experience working with the trucking industry. These are only two cabinet members, but I would be surprised if any cabinet member were perfectly free of experiences that could potentially bias them in one direction or the other."
I would imagine there aren't many people with deep knowledge of the telecommunications industry that did not work for the telecommunications industry.
I think that answer would have made the news.
"We knew there was a conflict of interest but we decided to appoint him anyways because he knows the industry" is pretty poor reasoning. People would rightly be pissed off about that.
A potential conflict of interest. "After vetting, we thought his past employment wouldn't prove to be a conflict of interest." Sounds relatively uncontroversial to me.
It was also a stupid fucking question that didn't deserve an answer at all, because it wasn't a question. It was a political attack with a question mark after it. If you want a real, substantive answer, ask a question that isn't a thinly veiled, or not even veiled at all in this case, attack.
I think it's a good question, because assigning the guy doesn't make any sense to me. However, I'm not the president of the US, so obviously I don't have nearly as much insight in the situation, but that's what the question is for: what information do you have that we are unaware of that made him such a great candidate for this job?
It was a loaded question, but frankly if there was a good reason why he was appointed, then you can answer a loaded question and come out looking great. Saying that he's knowledgeable about the issues is an OK answer, but that's like saying Don King was appointed to regulate boxing because he's experienced with it. It doesn't change the fact that there's a good chance there's a conflict of interest.
So yeah it was a loaded question but definitely a question that needs asking. If we make excuses for elected officials then they will go nowhere. I don't feel obligated to defend Obama simply because I voted for him as the lesser of two evils. I understand this is the counter-jerk thread but I think the criticism is pretty unfair.
I may not like how lobbyists can manipulate the law for unethical things but I don't hate lobbyists. The point of a lobbyist is to petition the government for new laws, changes, etc. He's a good choice because he knows how to get shit done.
If Wheeler was promoting legal weed or libertarian politics they would love him.
Half of these idiots don't know shit about politics.
It's hilarious to me when people get all bent out of shape over people with ties to industry getting government postings. Where do they think you get this experience from? Self-help books?
I don't know about you, but I feel that watching youtube documentaries makes me qualified to hold office and influence policy.
That's what bums me out about not being nominated for Secretary of commerce. I mean I buy a lot of shit, It's crony capitalism!
These are the exact same people that bitch and moan when school boards are filled with people who have no experience in education.
There's no way to win according to them. You either have to put in a person who knows fucking nothing about the industry they're being entrusted to regulate and they end up fucking up because they have no grasp on the realities of the industry, and so these people bitch because they were unqualified.
Or you can put in someone with decades of industry experience who knows the realities of it and when they inevitably do something a lay person doesn't get it's because they are in a conspiracy against the American public and it cannot possibly be because this person with decades of experience actually knows better than people mostly informing themselves with memes and youtube videos.
You should see the secret government youtube videos and memes.
and then turn around and blast Obama for not having experience in the private sector.
I've seen House of Cards, I know how this works, they're all evil! But realistically, I interned at a state-level lobbying firm and people bounced back and forth between lobbying and government gigs all the time. They're similar fields and working in lobbying gives you a chance to meet people. In a way a lobbyist is kind of like a lawyer that represents companies and interest groups and helps them ask for legislation that's favorable to them and likely to pass, so the skills are pretty similar. Plus if big corporations really had an elaborate plan to put someone in office and pull the strings all day I'd like to think they'd be more subtle about it.
Not to downplay your views or your experience, but do you really think that regulatory capture is not a thing? It's pretty elitist to intern at a state level lobbying firm, and then suggest that anyone who comments on politics has gained their knowledge and views from House of Cards.
Hitler got shit done too, and see where that got us!!
^^</s>
That's it exactly. He has a lifetime of experience IN THIS FIELD. I used to work for a certain grocery chain, doesn't mean I like THEIR agenda, just means I was paid by them to go along with it. It also means I have an in depth knowledge of the industry.
> Half of these idiots
That might be generous
They seem to all forget that Wheeler was the third pick, the first two were blocked.
[deleted]
"He should have said 'lol fuck Obummer, that guy's an idiot' instead, THAT would have been a good answer."
My question is, 'You suck!' What do you have to say about that, AMA person?
It's not a real answer because it technically addresses the question while evading what is clearly the main point of the question: Why did Obama choose a telecom lobbyist, rather than someone who wasn't a telecom lobbyist? I'm not saying there aren't valid answers to the question, I'm saying the answer actually given acted as if this wasn't even in the question, when it was clearly what the questioner was asking about.
Furthermore, tone-wise, hiding the answer as a single sentence that is the 3rd of 4 sentences, when the first two seem tangential, makes the answer as a whole seem canned and inauthentic. I think some people got a bad impression before they even got to the 3rd sentence, and were thus already ready to dislike it by the time they saw it, and that explains some of the reactions.
>Tom is deeply knowledgeable about these issues, and has a long history of dealing with them.
That's the answer. He has knowledge of the issues and experience lobbying congress and making deals. You may not like it, but that is the answer.
You already said that. You ignored my response. Repeating yourself just invites me to repeat my response, which would be pointless. Scroll up instead.
> Why did Obama choose a telecom lobbyist, rather than someone who wasn't a telecom lobbyist?
A: Tom is deeply knowledgeable about these issues, and has a long history of dealing with them.
Sounds like he answered your question.
This will absolutely get buried, but that was a perfectly acceptable answer.
"How does Obama justify appointing Tom Wheeler now?"
"Tom Wheeler has years of political experience and technical expertise in this and many other fields the FCC regulates."
Seems legit to me.
> You can be a complete shitheel (many popular AMA threads come from convicted felons of various stripes, like Mike Tyson, or the mob guy) and reddit will still meet you halfway as long as you are prepared to answer the tough questions and not just the easy ones
lol, bullshit
Mark Wahlberg and Lars Ulrich disagree with that Redditor too.
What happened with Marky Mark?
His rap career never got off the ground, but he turned out to be a pretty good actor a couple decades later.
When he was about 16 years old he robbed a store and beat up a grocery clerk really bad. Someone else here probably has the court case saved on a pastebin so they may add more to this story.
Welp, there's another ok actor I liked being ruined for me.
He did it when he was really young. He went to jail and apologized for it. He doesn't do hard drugs any longer. People change.
And now he's back to being an ok actor in my books.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eSN8Cwit_s
That video is incredible. There is just so much going on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rq-7zEVuwI
After robbing the store he also attacked Vietnamese men and blinded one of them in an act of racially-fuelled violence. Marky Mark's past is dark.
See, I knew someone would add more details.
It ain't Ask Me Anything and I'll Answer Every Question With Superfluous Details.
That would be a terrible acronym.
AMAIAEQWSD? Sounds good to me.
Wow, they feel extremely entitled to get the answer that only they want to hear. I'll bet that if he said the opposite, that Wheeler is terrible, he'd be showered in upvotes and praises.
Get off your high horse, /r/IAmA
[deleted]
> They are displeased because he was specifically asked about how the president justifies hiring an ex-lobbyist and he completely ignored this aspect of the question.
> With the answer he gave (Wheeler is "knowledgeable") he may as well have not answered at all. Everybody everywhere always tries to hire someone knowledgeable in the thing they are hiring someone for.
huh? that is the justification. he's knowledgeable in the realm of government policy and telecom because he worked as a lobbyist for the telecom industry. he is working for the president now to achieve the president's vision for what the president wants.
you can choose to believe him or not, but that is the answer to the question. reddit is just mad because it's not the one they wanted to hear.
I choose to believe that is the real justification, and also believe it's not a good justification. But yeah, that still means he answered.
You know, he was asked how President Obama justifies it. How the hell is he supposed to answer? HE'S NOT OBAMA. So he gave the next best answer he could without going "lol Obama dun goofed amirite?!?! UPVOTES TO THE LEFT" and losing his job. Would you risk your own job if you were placed in the same situation?
It's like you've never heard of politics. The guy works in politics. He's going to give the political answer, not necessarily the one that reddit's trying to goad you into.
I don't understand. He answered the question.
Tom Wheeler does know quite a bit about this and Obama should hear all sides. Obama has stated his position and if Tom Wheeler refuses to carry out Obama's orders then he will be fired. But Tom Wheeler will likely do what Obama wants, and do it well.
Obama can't fire Wheeler, as the FCC is an independent agency. The appointment is fixed for five years.
People get so butthurt when industry professionals get appointed to positions. They totally forget that these people are the most experienced in the field for that job.
There are reasons I am not politically involved. One of them is that I don't know Jack squat about much of anything besides mathematics and computers.
Yeah, if he hires a politician then peoe whine that he knows nothing and is a vicitm of lobbyists. If he hires a nonprofit worker, people complain about lack of real world experience. But if he's hired someone deeply experienced in the industry, they're clearly in bed with their former coworkers
I would much rather have someone less knowledgeable appointed who doesn't have connections higher up in the companies they're supposed to regulate. This is the same country where Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, the company that was handed out reconstruction contracts in Iraq, and the same company that was found to inflate prices on literally everything to profit the most possible from those contracts. People are acting like regulatory capture isn't a thing; of course it's a thing. Conflict of interest in politics is a huge problem and has been for decades.
You would argue that Tom Wheeler is the most experienced or the most invested?
Theyre plenty of extremely knowledgeable and experienced people who arent industry lobbyists.
Why are you being down voted? This is completely true.
>Obama has stated his position and if Tom Wheeler refuses to carry out Obama's orders then he will be fired.
I love how SRD pretends to be more knowledgeable than the the rest of reddit.
Sorry buddy, but that's not how it works. Presidents can't just fire everyone who doesn't obey them.
Bunch of self righteous neckbeards bitching in an echo chamber because they feel entitled to a non political answer from a politician to a political question.
Not even a politician, but a politician's lackey who doesn't even have the authority to go off-script.
Popcorn pisser detected.
Gotta love that 3-day-old drama for catching the pissers.
Also, http://www.reddit.com/user/solidwhetstone
Lol, I actually banned /u/solidwhetstone within a minute of commenting. Turns out, (s)he is a mod on /r/IAMA, so not actually pissing in the popcorn.
Yeah I just found the thread in my front page...I didn't even know how I got entangled in SRD's wily tendrils!
> Turns out, (s)he is a mod on /r/IAMA[2] , so not actually pissing in the popcorn.
Doesn't mean a banning isn't the right thing to do........ sometimes it has to happen....
Sometimes there are ways out of it
These mods are ruining Reddit!
We've all experienced them at one point or another
IT'S JUST BEEN REVOKED
> even an Admin gets involved
By stating what time it starts? I dunno, seems a little sensational to me...Plus, it's chooter, who's the "AMA admin", she's all over every AMA for the most part.
Read further down. The admin in question doesn't distinguish, he just says he works at reddit
found it for everyone, since I missed it myself the first time
> I'll be honest, I work at reddit to make the internet a better place and doing that means engaging in a lot political strategy and tactics. There is a lot going on than just this AMA in the net neutrality debate.
> reddit is seen as a place to talk to the internet so if that means an interested politician would like to do an AMA, so be it. Believe it or not, this AMA is mainly being used to convince other lawmakers and officials that net neutrality is an issue to rally around. This AMA is about creating the political cover for officials to support net neutrality. Politics isn't all sunshine and rainbows, sometimes they need a bit of support to do the right thing. You might have some grievances with the White House or this AMA, but this doubles as a way to put pressure on Wheeler and not just a conversation with redditors. I rather have a slow-going AMA with real world results than a feel-good AMA to help you wile away your time.
> There is always going to be a fundamental difference between AMAs by a politician or a celebrity. Political AMAs are always gonna be very hard to do by their very nature. There a whole subreddit of other AMAs for you to enjoy. This one had a real world effect.
it's the /u/pinwale lad up top, I also thought it was Victoria at first.
SnapShots: 1, 2, 3 ^[?]
^^Anyone ^^know ^^an ^^alternative ^^to ^^Readability? ^^Send ^^me ^^a ^^PM!
Oh huh didnt realize I was going to be in this drama also. Oh well its kind of like watching a home movie I suppose.
I wonder if most redditors (or at least redditors there) know how real life works?
wow shit really went down if an Administrator had to step in. I can't think of the last time that has ever happened
Net neutrality doesn't even seem like the most pressing issue. Yet people here are act like it's the next holocaust.
Where is the admin getting involved? All I see is an admin telling people the time. I don't even really see that big a slap fight.
One guy claimed to work for reddit. I don't have the willpower to go and verify.
Didn't see that guy. Can confirm, he does work for reddit.
>He's actually making things worse if you ask me. For the last six years, Republicans have opposed everything he's done on principle. Now that they dominate the House and Senate, this jackass comes out in support of NN, ensuring Republicans will oppose it because they oppose him. Obama is a chump.
Jesus christ nothing will make these people happy
>This is a highly political AMA so it's not gonna be as hard hitting as he likely has to be really thorough in his answers. The cable companies are also in this thread looking for things to use against the White House.
BWAHHAAHAAAH!! The self-importance of these people is staggering.
"Even an admin gets involved"
Great clickbait OP. The admin was simply confirming that they did not start answering yet.
I was hoping for some admin drama
I'm popping some corn. Lets do this.
ELI5: what does this Net Neutrality means to me as a European?
It means /r/technology will be flooded with this subject for a long time.
It has been for a while
You've only seen the smoke. The fire is yet to come.
Or u know, nothing happens because EA or apple did something and its off to a new fight
> nothing happens because EA or apple did something and its off to a new fight
didn't you hear? we have new company this year: Ubisoft
(prepare for either popcorn or circlejerking if there is news related to ubisoft)
It's actually about ethics in communications journalism.
(I know this makes no sense)
Well you better make room on your European couch (couche/longchair/ couuch?) because we're moving in!
> couch (couche/longchair/ couuch?)
Cøüch.
^(note: Despite what Google says, I'm pretty sure this is not actually the Swedish word for couch, since I just made it up. And am not Swedish.)
It stems from video.
Let's say for a moment you have cable tv. And let's say you have it via Arqiva (I've just placed you in England, sorry, if I'm wrong, you'll just have to move). And Arqiva is also your internet provider.
What happens is that you sit down and watch CNN via your Arqiva Cable connection. CNN is in this case what is called a "Contents Provider" (CP), Arqiva is your "Service Provider" (SP).
Now, obviously, it's all about the money. Where does your money go? Well, you're paying Arqiva to transmit you your contents. Who inserts your adds? Well, Arqiva does as well. So essentially, CNN is creating the contents, Arqiva is getting the money.
This has caused a number of CP's to start thinking that maybe they should start streaming the video on payperview - hey, it worked for Netflix, right?
Now a number of North American SP's (I don't think Arqiva has done it) have started to say, well, this is not a good thing, they're bypassing us and using our own network to do it. Thus they have started to treat video contents over IP as second class traffic with the hope of making streaming video unbearable to watch, so the customers will come crawling back to cable.
And yes, this is obviously a big fight as there's a huge amount of money involved.
That Wheeler guy was president of the NCTA who officially state that "we support the original principles of Net Neutrality – that all legitimate Internet traffic should be treated equally when traveling over local networks, that ISPs should not pick favorites, and that consumers should have unfettered access to legal content of their choosing" which does raise a question of his neutrality on the matter.
The fight hasn't really broken out in Europe (yet) so you probably won't notice anything unless you attempt to stream video from the US.
TL;DR: Errrr... No, sorry, you're going to have to read the full thing, I'm afraid.
Yours is not really an accurate description of the Netflix fight. American ISPs aren't discriminating Netflix traffic, but there is a fight as to who should pay for better interconnection. But in any case, as a European, none of this will affect him. American regulations won't affect what European ISPs can and cannot do with network traffic and interconnection.
And depending on where in Europe you live, effective competition really helps prevent anticompetitive activity.
I am in the UK and any isp caught doing bad things would lose customers, as they can switch companies quickly and cheaply. I am in a rural area and can choose from 20 or 30 isps.
On Netflix specifically, both of the largest ISPs here peer freely with them, and others like Google and the BBC. The rest are pretty good too
If Americans lose the Net Neutrality fight, many American services will suffer. In particular new services will have a much higher barrier to enter and compete against established services.
Europeans will be affected if the content they consume suffers as a result. A very real possible outcome could be Netflix having higher operating costs, and passing that expense on to consumers world wide. Startups that would compete with Netflix will have slower service out the gate until they become profitable enough to buy "fast lanes."
It's also possible that European ISPs could follow suit, if their governments let them. Governments are likelier to cave to such pressures if there is a "working" model. If so, then your provider could effectively end up degrading traffic you might want.
It means you get to live in a civilized country while we're debating pointless shit like this.
Anybody who spent time in retail knows that this guy is EXACTLY who you want for that position. We had a problem with a shoplifter at our grocery store, so we hired him to do loss prevention for us. He knew what to look for because he's played the field before. He was our best loss prevention employee we ever had.
Obama hired a man who knows how the other side plays. Thats why he's the best man for the job. As the old saying goes: The enemy of my enemy is a friend.
Knowing reddit, any answer he would have given, much less one that sidesteps the Tom Wheeler question, would have been downvoted to hell. But it wasn't. That's quite suspicious.
Maybe there's a few people out there who recognize what he said as a valid answer, even if it's not the one you want to hear.
I'm not denying that. What I'm denying is that those people outnumber the reddit mob that unfailingly downvotes unpopular opinions on default subs like r/iama.
"Hey, thanks for these upvotes, Obama! It'll be a great Christmas this year now that I have these babies."