FCC commissioner tries to do reddit AMA, fails

[Thanas]

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2 ... rn_ask_me/

Just answered about five questions before fleeing.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Oh, god. It's like watching a defenseless little fluffy rabbit obliviously wander into a hyena pack's hunting turf.

[Simon_Jester]

It was darkly amusing.

The one thing that makes me sympathetic to Clyburn is the huge volume of questions being asked of her- it would be very hard to write substantive replies to them all. Plus, if she says anything that in hindsight sounds... intemperate, she gets in trouble at her job.

One reason all organizational spokespersons sound like a bunch of cardboard cutouts is that unlike the journalists or random private citizens talking to them, they really aren't allowed to do things like get sarcastic, make firm positive statements about ongoing policy disputes within their organization, or publicly insult people they'll have to work with on a day to day basis.

It'd be nice if we had* actual evidence on what this particular commissioner had and had not done or supported...

*(maybe we do have it, and I haven't found it)

[Borgholio]

Typical bureaucrat. Gave straight answers about her favorite food and stand-up comedian, but answered every good question with buzzwords and vague reassurances. I don't think they'll try this again for a long time.

[Thanas]

It was darkly amusing.

The one thing that makes me sympathetic to Clyburn is the huge volume of questions being asked of her- it would be very hard to write substantive replies to them all. Plus, if she says anything that in hindsight sounds... intemperate, she gets in trouble at her job.

No, screw her. She went into a place that supports net neutrality and has a lot US telecom monopoly consumers.

She refuses to answer the top questions "Why did the FCC allow this monopoly to happen?" with anything except platitudes. Which sound even worse than the actual FCC plans. It is not as if she answered a lot of questions at all - barely about twenty or so and not even all of them had a lot to do with her job. link.

And to top it of, she previously supported net neutrality but did not do so after she got the top job.

[Thanas]

I mean, just read this stuff. Or this. Complete BS and insulting to the one asking the question to boot.

[White Haven]

That AMA was never, ever, going to go well, so what I'd really like to hear is what the fuck this little toad was thinking. I didn't have time to read it, but I saw the AMA pop up on my tablet and just sorta...stared at it in wonder for a bit. I just...I can't grasp what positive outcome this idiot thought was even possible.

[sarevok2]

The commoners have no business asking direction questions to their noble overlords.

[Simon_Jester]

No, screw her. She went into a place that supports net neutrality and has a lot US telecom monopoly consumers.

I get that, I agree with that. I didn't say she wasn't coming across as a horrible bureaucratic crap-drone. I'm saying I'm vaguely sympathetic with being in the position of having a hundred people all simultaneously demand answers to tough questions that you can't answer without getting into serious trouble at your workplace.

Sort of like I can sympathize with Wehrmacht soldiers under artillery bombardment. It's not that they should have been where they were, doing what they were doing... it's, well, "Ouch. Sucks to be you." That level of sympathy.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

No, screw her. She went into a place that supports net neutrality and has a lot US telecom monopoly consumers.

I get that, I agree with that. I didn't say she wasn't coming across as a horrible bureaucratic crap-drone. I'm saying I'm vaguely sympathetic with being in the position of having a hundred people all simultaneously demand answers to tough questions that you can't answer without getting into serious trouble at your workplace.

Sort of like I can sympathize with Wehrmacht soldiers under artillery bombardment. It's not that they should have been where they were, doing what they were doing... it's, well, "Ouch. Sucks to be you." That level of sympathy.

That's the optimistic point of view. But there's always lots of group thinking going on within government bureaucracies, and a person like her wouldn't get the position if she didn't share her boss's opinions.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, I'm honestly prepared to believe she's whoring out her opinions to the highest corporate bidder, exactly as the most cynical people here believe. That her real opinions, the policies of her organization, are an indefensible betrayal of the public trust.

And yet I can sympathize a little with a human being who has (foolishly) exposed herself to predictable dogpiling by swarms of people demanding that she defend the indefensible. In, again, the "ouch, sucks to be you" sense.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, I'm honestly prepared to believe she's whoring out her opinions to the highest corporate bidder, exactly as the most cynical people here believe. That her real opinions, the policies of her organization, are an indefensible betrayal of the public trust.

And yet I can sympathize a little with a human being who has (foolishly) exposed herself to predictable dogpiling by swarms of people demanding that she defend the indefensible. In, again, the "ouch, sucks to be you" sense.

This is the same organisation that had a public feedback site that crashed after hordes of people registered their displeasure with the FCC's stance with regards to Net neutrality bit. Honestly, either 1. They desperately want the public's approval for their work or 2. They are just stupid and ideological and detached. I have no idea which.

[Lost Soal]

No, screw her. She went into a place that supports net neutrality and has a lot US telecom monopoly consumers.

I get that, I agree with that. I didn't say she wasn't coming across as a horrible bureaucratic crap-drone. I'm saying I'm vaguely sympathetic with being in the position of having a hundred people all simultaneously demand answers to tough questions that you can't answer without getting into serious trouble at your workplace.

If she knew she wouldn't be allowed to answer obvious questions like "why has your organisation allowed monopolies in multiple states" then she shouldn't have fucking done it in the first place. She gets no sympathy because it should be obvious that you do not initiate a Q&A if your not allowed to answer freely.

[Scrib]

Well, I'm honestly prepared to believe she's whoring out her opinions to the highest corporate bidder, exactly as the most cynical people here believe. That her real opinions, the policies of her organization, are an indefensible betrayal of the public trust.

And yet I can sympathize a little with a human being who has (foolishly) exposed herself to predictable dogpiling by swarms of people demanding that she defend the indefensible. In, again, the "ouch, sucks to be you" sense.

This is the same organisation that had a public feedback site that crashed after hordes of people registered their displeasure with the FCC's stance with regards to Net neutrality bit. Honestly, either 1. They desperately want the public's approval for their work or 2. They are just stupid and ideological and detached. I have no idea which.

We still feel bad for dumb people.

I don't know where to rank this on a scale of 1 to Rampart. On the one hand the Rampart AMA had much better comments, on the other at least that made sense strategically, it's just the application that failed, this was just always a mega-dumb idea. Reddit sucks public figure cock when it doesn't interfere with their interwebz.

This is the sort of shit I would expect to see in an Armando Ianucci political comedy. Malcolm Tucker running down the hallways trying to eviscerate whoever allowed one of his people to be exposed to reddit.

[Gaidin]

Out of curiosity, would anybody with any legal education or experience take a wild guess at predicting at how fast a lawsuit would come if the FCC doesn't just put out a policy that is them flat out getting on their knees and full out sucking the providers' dicks?

[Lonestar]

My favorite AMA of all time remains Martin O'Malley's AMA. Talk about a deathspiral.

I do not, for the life of me, understand how anyone in a political position think that doing a AMA is a good idea after that that(unless you are Gary Johnson, I guess, who at least knows how to do the populist thing).

[Mr Bean]

Out of curiosity, would anybody with any legal education or experience take a wild guess at predicting at how fast a lawsuit would come if the FCC doesn't just put out a policy that is them flat out getting on their knees and full out sucking the providers' dicks?

I have to say that there will be at best a day. No question Comcast has a "chose your own lawsuit" ready to go ready to sue on every single possible point and the only thing that will change will be the linking language between points and how many points their are.

In other words if I were Comcast I'd have every single possible FCC regulation with an argument and a lawsuit ready to go. Regulations get purposed well then copy pasted 1-10, Number 15, 26 and 48 into the press release and dump it out into the wild.

[Gaidin]

I have to say that there will be at best a day. No question Comcast has a "chose your own lawsuit" ready to go ready to sue on every single possible point and the only thing that will change will be the linking language between points and how many points their are.

In other words if I were Comcast I'd have every single possible FCC regulation with an argument and a lawsuit ready to go. Regulations get purposed well then copy pasted 1-10, Number 15, 26 and 48 into the press release and dump it out into the wild.

So while we can all happily say "Net Neutrality Yes", would it actually take time to form a policy with wording that does even that, however it happens, in a fashion that has a reasonable chance to withstand a lawsuit? If the courts threw out the first one, can we really expect them to pull a second one that does something *that* similar with even soft-rock solid resistance to a lawsuit at the drop of a dime?

I mean, not that I expect or trust the FCC to be fully one way or the other. I honestly expect them to be somewhere in the middle. However "left" or "right" they are I could only guess. But their own lawyers going at their own policy seems kind of important, even if it leaves their own commissioners looking like whatever it leaves them looking like because they can't exactly talk about it until something's finalized(guess that's the major bad idea part of the AMA).

Sorry for the segue from the actual thread topic...just seemed...relevant.

[salm]

Did they delete her answers? I can´t seem to find a single post by her besides her opening post.

[Siege]

Probably got downvoted into oblivion, Reddit-style. Look here instead of at the thread.

[salm]

Probably got downvoted into oblivion, Reddit-style. Look here instead of at the thread.

Thank you.

[Lagmonster]

I've spent some time with government-appointed communications people, aka censors to information which may contradict or harm the current party's policy stance, and if I were her employers, I'd feel good about that AMA. From the perspective of an insider, it was a slaughter - the king coming onto his balcony and being pelted with tomatoes. But she got a chance to put out all the 'correct' statements in a medium horrifically hostile to that message, and wasn't visibly routed or made to lose her cool.

[Block]

Stupid. On Redditors part. You have a shot at one of the 5 people making the decision on forthcoming legislation, and you make her feel hated. She's really likely to take your input now.

[Thanas]

Stupid. On Redditors part. You have a shot at one of the 5 people making the decision on forthcoming legislation, and you make her feel hated. She's really likely to take your input now.

If you think cotton-candying by redditors was going to make her reconsider I have a bridge to sell you.

[Block]

I think that one of the big problems of the pro net neutrality side is that the majority of people on it do a shitty job of saying anything other than 'ISPs bad,' and that any chance to give well thought out opinions to a decision maker should be taken.