Comments on: Assertions without Fact http://broadbandpolitics.com/2010/03/assertions-without-fact/ On the theory and practice of networking Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:33:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Richard Bennett http://broadbandpolitics.com/2010/03/assertions-without-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-429195 Richard Bennett Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:20:11 +0000 http://broadbandpolitics.com/2010/03/assertions-without-fact/#comment-429195 Can you support your assertions with evidence, tl? That's what we're looking for, you see. Can you support your assertions with evidence, tl? That’s what we’re looking for, you see.

]]> By: tl http://broadbandpolitics.com/2010/03/assertions-without-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-429192 tl Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:04:34 +0000 http://broadbandpolitics.com/2010/03/assertions-without-fact/#comment-429192 Brett, the problem with your theory that everyone for net neutrality is only doing it because of Google's interest, is that it could equally be argued that everyone against it is doing it for AT&T. You're like the anti-Tim Karr (who's just as ridiculous with his complaints). Companies pay money to people they agree with, in order to advance those views. If there's any corruption it's systemic, not deliberate, so maybe you should go support Larry Lessig's latest crusade. Richard, you've already decided that only engineers count as "smart," or at least should weigh in on policy debates about the internet, and you think that, because engineers are smart, they can dismiss arguments founding in the law, history, and economics with engineering jargon. After all, all that matters are "practical realities," not these mumbo-jumbo theories offering by these not-very-smart think tanks. Brett, the problem with your theory that everyone for net neutrality is only doing it because of Google’s interest, is that it could equally be argued that everyone against it is doing it for AT&T.

You’re like the anti-Tim Karr (who’s just as ridiculous with his complaints). Companies pay money to people they agree with, in order to advance those views. If there’s any corruption it’s systemic, not deliberate, so maybe you should go support Larry Lessig’s latest crusade.

Richard, you’ve already decided that only engineers count as “smart,” or at least should weigh in on policy debates about the internet, and you think that, because engineers are smart, they can dismiss arguments founding in the law, history, and economics with engineering jargon. After all, all that matters are “practical realities,” not these mumbo-jumbo theories offering by these not-very-smart think tanks.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://broadbandpolitics.com/2010/03/assertions-without-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-429185 Seth Finkelstein Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:20:20 +0000 http://broadbandpolitics.com/2010/03/assertions-without-fact/#comment-429185 A big reason that they employ a number of people who aren’t very bright is that being very bright is not an essential qualification for the job of think-tanker, compared to being able to argue vociferously that black is white and up is down. That's a different skillset. "Credibility" depends on arguing within conventional wisdom and frameworks, not in being factually accurate. A big reason that they employ a number of people who aren’t very bright is that being very bright is not an essential qualification for the job of think-tanker, compared to being able to argue vociferously that black is white and up is down. That’s a different skillset. “Credibility” depends on arguing within conventional wisdom and frameworks, not in being factually accurate.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://broadbandpolitics.com/2010/03/assertions-without-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-429184 Richard Bennett Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:50:52 +0000 http://broadbandpolitics.com/2010/03/assertions-without-fact/#comment-429184 Think tanks have multiple sponsors, and keeping them happy depends in part on credibility; that's the motivation for keeping it real. Most think tanks employ a number of people who aren't very bright, and it's their ignorance rather than malice that makes their assertions so lame. Think tanks have multiple sponsors, and keeping them happy depends in part on credibility; that’s the motivation for keeping it real. Most think tanks employ a number of people who aren’t very bright, and it’s their ignorance rather than malice that makes their assertions so lame.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://broadbandpolitics.com/2010/03/assertions-without-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-429183 Seth Finkelstein Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:25:41 +0000 http://broadbandpolitics.com/2010/03/assertions-without-fact/#comment-429183 Now, now, you know better, and he does, too. This is nothing but hype for Google's techno-mysticism. What think-tank will ever come out with research that contradicts the policy advocated by its funders? Many of them exist for the sole reason of coming up with nonsense to support their paymasters. A more cynical take on his comments would be that Google can provide a patina of plausibility for whatever conclusion the propagandist wants to support. "It's Science!". Now, now, you know better, and he does, too. This is nothing but hype for Google’s techno-mysticism.

What think-tank will ever come out with research that contradicts the policy advocated by its funders? Many of them exist for the sole reason of coming up with nonsense to support their paymasters.

A more cynical take on his comments would be that Google can provide a patina of plausibility for whatever conclusion the propagandist wants to support. “It’s Science!”.

]]>